Saletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan.fulltext.all.rss
Anti-Semitism: The Israel Factorhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/16/anti_semitism_and_anti_zionism_does_an_adl_survey_show_hatred_of_jews_or.html
<p>The Anti-Defamation League has <a href="http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-international/adl-global-100-poll.html">released</a> a <a href="http://global100.adl.org/">worldwide survey of anti-Semitism</a>. It’s an excellent resource, creating an index that can measure <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/24/anti_semitism_in_europe_statistics_from_france_germany_the_u_k_and_other.html">increases</a> or <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/kansas_ukraine_israel_is_anti_semitism_being_overhyped.html">decreases</a> in prejudice against Jews. The most striking finding is a vastly higher rate of anti-Semitism in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) than in the rest of the world. But much of this difference seems to be more about Israel than about Jews.</p>
<p>The survey offered respondents <a href="http://global100.adl.org/public/ADL-Global-100-Executive-Summary.pdf">11 statements</a> expressing suspicion or resentment of Jews. In North and South America, 19 percent of respondents said that at least six of these statements were probably true. In Western Europe, the number was 24 percent. In Eastern Europe, it was 34 percent. In MENA, it was 74 percent, twice as high as any other region. The 15 most anti-Semitic countries were all in MENA.</p>
<p>Why such an enormous gap? One explanation might be exposure to anti-Jewish propaganda. But in that case, you’d think higher education would help. In most of the world, it does. In the Americas and Western Europe, people who had more years of schooling (finishing at age 23 or older, as opposed to finishing at age 18 or younger) were less likely to express anti-Semitic views. In MENA, however, they were more likely to express such views, by 10 percentage points.</p>
<p>Another explanation could be social inexperience. Seventy-eight percent of respondents in MENA said they had never met a Jewish person, compared with 73 percent of respondents in other regions. But that’s not a big difference. And one of the survey’s most surprising findings was that in the entire sample, people who said they had never met a Jew were no more likely to affirm the anti-Semitic statements.</p>
<p>Is the MENA difference due to Islam? Overall, when compared with people of other faiths, Muslims were more likely to affirm at least six of the statements. But Christians in MENA were more than twice as likely to do so as were Muslims in the rest of the world. Outside MENA, religion was more or less a wash. In fact, in Eastern Europe and sub-Saharan Africa, Muslims were less anti-Semitic than Christians were. The survey report concludes that “region tends to be a stronger factor than religion.”</p>
<p>Why would region overpower religion? The obvious guess is proximity to Israel. The most anti-Semitic places on the planet, according to the survey, are Gaza and the West Bank, where 93 percent of respondents affirmed at least six of the anti-Jewish statements.</p>
<p>One way to quantify the Israel factor is to look at the survey’s findings on favorability (see the table below). Outside MENA, if you compare the “unfavorable” ratings of various religions, Jews score worse than every group except Muslims. Inside MENA, Jews score at the bottom. Even so, Israel scores lower than Jews. In MENA, the percentage of respondents who express an unfavorable opinion of Israel is 17 points higher than the percentage who express an unfavorable opinion of Jews. That’s twice as big as the unfavorability gap between Jews and Israel outside MENA. If you look at net favorability (the percentage of respondents who express a favorable opinion, minus the percentage who express an unfavorable opinion), you’ll see the same pattern. Outside MENA, Jews outscore Israel in net favorability by 10 percentage points. Inside MENA, they outscore Israel by 25 points.</p>
<p>Other findings in the survey (see the next table) underscore the Israel effect. One question asked respondents whether violence against Jews in their country was driven by anti-Jewish or anti-Israel feelings. Outside MENA, responses were evenly divided. In MENA, however, it was no contest: &nbsp;69 percent cited anti-Israel sentiment, while only 10 percent cited anti-Jewish sentiment. Outside MENA, 13 percent of respondents said Israel’s actions had a major influence on their opinions about Jews. Inside MENA, the number was 46 percent. Outside MENA, the net effect of Israeli actions on opinions about Israel was negative by 26 percentage points. Inside MENA, it was negative by 84 points.</p>
<p>These findings don’t mitigate the gravity of the overall results. The number of people worldwide who explicitly affirmed most of the anti-Jewish statements (26 percent) is worrisome. The number in MENA, 74 percent, is alarming. But a lot of that gap seems to be driven by anger about Israel, not by classical anti-Semitism. If Israel’s situation can be resolved, it’s possible that much of the hostility to Jews will subside.</p>Fri, 16 May 2014 15:30:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/16/anti_semitism_and_anti_zionism_does_an_adl_survey_show_hatred_of_jews_or.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-16T15:30:00ZNews and PoliticsAnti-Semitism in the Middle East: Is It Hatred of Jews, or Anger at Israel?244140516001anti-semitismjudaismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/16/anti_semitism_and_anti_zionism_does_an_adl_survey_show_hatred_of_jews_or.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow much of the world’s anti-Semitism is driven by anger at Israel? Surprising findings from an ADL survey.Anti-Semitism in the Middle East: Is It Hatred of Jews, or Anger at Israel?Photo by Mahmud Hams/AFP/Getty ImagesA Hamas-organized protest in Gaza against Israeli control of the al-Aqsa mosque, Sept. 24, 2013.Raise the Retirement Age to 70http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/15/australia_is_raising_its_retirement_age_to_70_the_u_s_should_do_the_same.html
<p>A timely idea is coming to us from the other side of the world. The idea is to raise the eligibility age for retirement benefits to 70.</p>
<p>Demographers and policy wonks have been <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2005/02/the_new_65.html">talking about this idea</a> for <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/03/bygone_age.html">years</a>. It’s based on the growth of life expectancy. In many countries, as things stand, the increasing number of years in which people draw benefits will overwhelm the unchanged number of years in which they’re paying into the system. The logical solution is to raise the retirement age, so that the benefit-drawing years are matched by an increase in the number of paying-in years.</p>
<p>This solution is fair in two ways. Collectively, the increase in healthy life expectancy (people are remaining physically fit longer) pays for the overall increase in life expectancy. And individually, each person capable of carrying his own weight is expected to do so.</p>
<p>In the U.S. and some other countries, the age for collecting retirement benefits is being adjusted gradually <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm">from 65 to 67</a>. Now Australia is going further. In a budget plan presented two days ago, the Australian government proposed to raise the pension eligibility age to 70. Australia’s treasurer, Joe Hockey, points out that in 1908, when the pension system was established, Australian life expectancy was 55. <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/australia-plan-raise-pension-age-70-blasted">Now it’s 85</a>.</p>
<p>Opponents of the change offer <a href="https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/pension-age-needs-culture-hockey-231811212.html">two good arguments</a>. One is that manual laborers, who are poorer to begin with, are less likely than white-collar workers to be capable of doing their jobs as their fitness declines. The other concern is that older workers will be pushed out of the labor market by age discrimination, forcing them to live on unemployment insurance instead of pensions.</p>
<p>To address these concerns, the government is <a href="https://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-05-14/interview-ray-hadley-2gb">offering employers $10,000</a>, spread out over two years, to hire and retain anyone over age 50 who’s drawing unemployment benefits or a disability pension. “Most of us change jobs at some stage,” Prime Minister Tony Abbott <a href="http://www.pm.gov.au/media/2014-05-14/interview-kyle-and-jackie-o-kiis-fm-sydney">observes</a>. “You are unlikely to be a laborer in your late 60s, but there are all sorts of reskilling, retraining opportunities.” Maybe you can’t lay bricks anymore, but you can drive a truck.</p>
<p>If the incentives aren’t adequate or well-structured, they can be revised. And there will always be people who can’t work and need disability benefits. But the principles of the Australian initiative are sound. First, retirement programs must be financially sustainable. They can’t perpetually dump debt on future generations. Second, people who can work instead of drawing benefits should do so. Third, the problem of employing older workers is already here, regardless of the retirement age. The solution is to help them find useful work, not to put them on a permanent dole. “<a href="https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/pension-age-needs-culture-hockey-231811212.html">We've got to start changing the culture</a>,” says Hockey.</p>
<p>The left disagrees. An Australian opposition spokesman says the government is suggesting, outrageously, that “<a href="http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/05/14/labor-to-vote-against-budget-measures.html">Australians should work longer than anybody else in the developed world</a>.&quot; But that’s only because Australia is taking the lead. The rest of us, including the U.S., should catch up.</p>Thu, 15 May 2014 14:09:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/15/australia_is_raising_its_retirement_age_to_70_the_u_s_should_do_the_same.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-15T14:09:00ZNews and PoliticsAustralia Is Raising Its Retirement Age to 70. The Rest of Us Should Catch Up.244140515001social securityretirementWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/15/australia_is_raising_its_retirement_age_to_70_the_u_s_should_do_the_same.htmlfalsefalsefalseAustralia is raising its retirement age to 70. Social Security should do the same.Australia Is Raising Its Retirement Age to 70. The Rest of Us Should Catch Up.Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty ImagesSen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, proposing to raise payroll taxes for Social Security instead of raising the retirement age, on March 7, 2013.The Tragedy of Donald Sterlinghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/13/donald_sterling_s_cnn_interview_he_s_too_horrified_by_racism_to_recognize.html
<p>In his <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1405/12/acd.01.html">interview with CNN</a>, aired last night, Donald Sterling insisted that the Los Angeles Clippers still loved him. Sterling’s host, Anderson Cooper, asked him why no players had come forward to defend him. Sterling replied that the controversy was too hot. “People are intimidated by even the thought of racism,” he said.</p>
<p>That’s true. These days, many people freak out over the slightest insinuation of racism. Part of Sterling’s problem is that he’s one of these people. He can’t stand the idea of anyone thinking he’s a racist. That’s what blinds him to his racism.</p>
<p>Throughout the interview, Sterling raised and repudiated the R-word. “I’m not a racist,” he said. “I’ll never be a racist.” He seemed baffled that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/28/donald_sterling_and_the_culture_of_segregation_he_s_a_porch_racist_not_a.html">racial statements</a> (<em>It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people</em>) somehow “came out of my mouth.” He attributed the statements to manipulation (“I was baited”) and even ventriloquism (“I don’t know why the girl had me say those things”).</p>
<p>Why can’t Sterling own his words? Because he thinks racism is so awful that an otherwise good person can’t be racist. That’s a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/racism_and_trayvon_martin_how_to_think_and_talk_constructively_after_the.html">fundamental mistake</a>. You can be perfectly well-intentioned and still be infected with unconscious prejudice. Maybe you tiptoe around black people. Maybe you interrupt women. Maybe you tune out anyone who seems religious.</p>
<p>In the interview, Sterling reviled racism. He called his offensive words “terrible” and pleaded that being called “a possible racist is so painful to me.” He couldn’t have a problem with blacks, he insisted, because “I love them.” Later, he added, “I like to help minorities … I spend millions on giving away and helping minorities.”</p>
<p>He portrayed his troublesome remarks as “uneducated.” “I can’t explain some of the stupid, foolish, uneducated words that I uttered,” he said. “I&nbsp;don't understand why in the world I said any of those stupid, uneducated remarks.” One reason he can’t explain such remarks is that he seems to think no educated person could say them. But lots of people with professional degrees still harbor biases. Fancying yourself an educated person won’t protect you.</p>
<p>Self-awareness helps, but it isn’t a guaranteed cure. You can be alert to some weaknesses while using them to paper over others. For Sterling, the cover story is jealousy. It was his girlfriend who brought up race, he told Cooper: “She said to me, ‘I'm going to bring four gorgeous black guys to the game.’ … I said to her, ‘Don't bring them to the game,’ because of my jealousy.” No doubt jealousy was a factor. But it can’t explain the flatly racial aspects of the conversation (<em><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marriage_is_different_from.html">In your lousy fucking Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people</a></em>), or the persistence with which Sterling repeated the word <em>black</em>. In Sterling’s head, the jealousy and the racial anxiety were mixed together.</p>
<p>How Sterling developed his initial feelings about race is anyone’s guess. But his interview suggests two reasons why those feelings remain invisible to him. One is that he doesn’t understand the varieties of racism. When Cooper told him that Elgin Baylor, the Clippers’ former general manager, had accused Sterling of a “plantation mentality,” Sterling replied: “I'm not a racist, and I have never been a racist, and I will never be a racist. I don't know what that means, to have a mentality.” The subtleties of groupspeak and condescension (“I like to help minorities”) seemed not to have occurred to him.</p>
<p>The other factor behind Sterling’s obtuseness is his failure to understand himself. “That's not the way I talk,” he told Cooper, referring to the taped conversation. “I don't talk about people, for one thing, ever. I talk about ideas.” Come on. No matter what you think of Sterling, it’s obvious from <a href="http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2014/05/donald-sterling-racist-rant-secret-recording-v-stiviano-sex/">his taped conversations</a> that he <em>loves</em> to talk about people.</p>
<p>Nor does Sterling recognize <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marriage_is_different_from.html">patterns in his life</a>. Cooper pointed out that to many listeners, “These comments that were caught on tape do echo other charges that have been made in the past, as you know, by Elgin Baylor [and] in other lawsuits.” Sterling dismissed the idea: “Elgin Baylor has nothing to do with … the things I said 20 years later.”</p>
<p>Sterling is a tragic figure. But we can learn from him, just as we did from the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/trayvon_martin_verdict_racism_hate_crimes_prosecution_and_other_overreactions.html">Trayvon Martin case</a>. Some of the lessons of that case were about treating people as individuals. But the first lesson was <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/07/racism_and_trayvon_martin_how_to_think_and_talk_constructively_after_the.html">not to freak out</a>. Another lesson was not to pretend you’re perfect. Freaking out when you’re accused of racism locks you into denial. And fixating on the premise that you’re a good person blinds you to the reality that bias and benevolence routinely coexist.</p>
<p>Sterling has it all: racism, sexism, prurience, vanity. He knows he’s flawed. “I'm kind of foolish,” he confessed to Cooper. “I thought she liked me and really cared for me. I guess being 50 years … older than her, I was deluding myself.” If only he had developed that kind of insight earlier in his life, about the power of color in his perceptions of others. It didn’t have to end this way. For him, and for all of us, it still doesn’t.</p>Tue, 13 May 2014 14:12:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/13/donald_sterling_s_cnn_interview_he_s_too_horrified_by_racism_to_recognize.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-13T14:12:00ZNews and PoliticsDonald Sterling Is Too Horrified by Racism to Recognize It in Himself244140513001donald sterlingracismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/13/donald_sterling_s_cnn_interview_he_s_too_horrified_by_racism_to_recognize.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Sterling’s CNN interview shows he’s too horrified by racism to recognize it in himself.Donald Sterling Is Too Horrified by Racism to Recognize It in Himself1519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631250330011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO35631552190011519028538001AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_1U0LqDiRqg6y9siD7-Z_bO3563155219001Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty ImagesDonald Sterling at a Los Angeles Clippers game, April 21, 2014.When Churches Do the Right Thinghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/08/is_religion_evil_on_guns_terrorism_and_civil_liberties_these_churches_did.html
<p>Religious institutions are often viewed as instigators of conflict, oppression, and violence. That’s due in part to a natural media bias: Conflict makes news. It’s harder to notice the many ways in which churches and religious people work for peace and reconciliation. Here are three recent stories.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal signed into law a bill that lets people <a href="http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2014/04/23/nathan-deal-stresses-positive-changes-in-gun-bill-hell-sign-today/">bring guns into churches, schools, bars, government buildings, and other places</a> where possession of firearms used to be prohibited or more tightly restricted. Under this law, bringing a gun to church can be punished only as a misdemeanor, and it’s not punishable at all if “<a href="http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/20132014/HB/60">the governing body or authority of the place of worship permits the carrying of weapons or long guns by license holders</a>.”</p>
<p>More than 200 Georgia religious leaders <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/episcopal-churches-ban-weapons-after-expansion-of-/nfkZk/">opposed the legislation</a>. A few days after the governor signed it, the bishop of Atlanta’s Episcopal diocese, Robert Wright, responded with a directive banning guns on church property. This decision, he explained, was “<a href="https://www.episcopalatlanta.org/Customer-Content/www/CMS/files/DioATL_nogunsletter.pdf">based on the normative understanding of the teachings of Jesus</a>.”</p>
<p>The Catholic archbishop of Atlanta, Wilton Gregory, issued a <a href="http://www.georgiabulletin.org/commentary/2014/04/decrying-the-states-new-gun-law/">similar rebuke</a>: “The last thing we need is more firearms in public places, especially in those places frequented by children and the vulnerable.” He added:</p>
<blockquote>
[T]his new legislation
<em>de facto </em>makes firearms more available in places where they may allow violence to escalate.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Churches and other places of worship are intended to be sanctuaries—holy sites where people come to pray and to worship God. In this nation of ours, they have seldom been the locations where violence has disrupted the otherwise peaceful atmosphere. Yet even those occasions—rare as they may be—are not sufficient reasons to allow people to bring more weapons into God’s house.
</blockquote>
<p>In Europe, church leaders have taken a stand against police raids on Czech mosques. On April 25, police in Prague raided two Islamic centers during prayers and detained 20 people, including an Indonesian diplomat. They arrested one man for publishing a book that they said promoted racism and xenophobia. Local Christian leaders <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/czech-churches-critical-raids-muslims-23560355">denounced</a> the raids. A Catholic priest called them sinful. A senior official at the Ecumenical Council of Churches said they violated the rights of worshipers.</p>
<p>In Africa, Muslim extremists have kidnapped more than 250 girls from a Nigerian school. Islamic leaders are condemning the crime. In a statement issued today, the Islamic Fiqh Academy <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Muslim-world-scholars-condemn-Nigeria-kidnapping-5462374.php">declared</a> that the kidnapping, like “other crimes committed by the likes of these extremist organizations … violates the provisions of the Quran and Sunnah.”</p>
<p>What these Christian and Muslim leaders have done is nothing special. Churches do such things all the time. Nor do a few good deeds erase the history of cruelty and violence in God’s name. But they ought to remind us that for every terrorist or gun nut, there are many people who practice the wiser teachings of their faiths. Religion is the vehicle through which most folks learn and practice morality. In the long run, it’s our friend.</p>Thu, 08 May 2014 16:28:59 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/08/is_religion_evil_on_guns_terrorism_and_civil_liberties_these_churches_did.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-08T16:28:59ZNews and PoliticsNo, Religion Isn’t the Enemy. Here Are Three Examples of Churches Doing the Right Thing.244140508001religionislamchristianityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/08/is_religion_evil_on_guns_terrorism_and_civil_liberties_these_churches_did.htmlfalsefalsefalseChurches make headlines only when they do something bad. Here are 3 cases where they did the right thing.No, Religion Isn’t the Enemy. Here Are Three Examples of Churches Doing the Right Thing.Photo by Shawn Thew/AFP/Getty ImagesBishop Wilton Gregory addresses the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Nov. 11, 2002.Make It Hurthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/07/third_national_climate_assessment_says_climate_change_is_hurting_the_u_s.html
<p>Yesterday a federal advisory committee issued a <a href="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/">major report</a> on “<a href="http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report">Climate Change Impacts in the United States</a>.” The report has good news and bad news.</p>
<p>The bad news, as <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s Phil Plait <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/05/06/national_climate_assessment_report_details_impacts_of_global_warming_on.html">explains</a>, is that climate change isn’t a scenario anymore. It’s happening, and it’s inflicting pain across our country.</p>
<p>The good news is that pain is healthy. Seeing and feeling the damage we’re doing are what will finally make us deal with the problem.</p>
<p>In general, people don’t face their problems till they have to. They like to have a good time and ignore the costs. Liberals tend to notice this bad habit in the context of public goods problems, such as pollution. We dump chemicals and leave the consequences to others until our water becomes undrinkable. Conservatives tend to notice the same habit in the context of spending. We treat ourselves to entitlements we can’t afford, and we leave the bill to our kids.</p>
<p>In daily life, accountability mechanisms usually limit the damage caused by this weakness. But the harm can get out of hand when those mechanisms are absent. That’s what often happens to entitlement programs: We use creative accounting and the power of the printing press to postpone the reckoning that would otherwise force us to cut back. The longer we postpone the pain, the worse the problem becomes.</p>
<p>In politics, pain is just a metaphor. But in medicine, it saves lives. A patient who doesn’t feel the warning signs of cancer or heart disease is far less likely to survive. So is a patient who experiences symptoms but ignores them. Your best chance is to face the problem and take action early. And what’s most likely to push you in that direction is pain.</p>
<p>That’s why this awful climate report is good for us. Climate change is arguably the most dangerous procrastination episode in the history of the world. We’ve been building up greenhouse gases for more than a century, at first ignorant of the consequences, and then unwilling to confront them. The stakes are catastrophic, but they’ve always seemed far away. You gas up your car or crank up your air conditioner, leaving the misery of an overheated planet to somebody else’s grandkids. And because the effects of today’s emissions are baked into the future, every year we dawdle raises the baseline level of harm—regardless of what we do in the interim—that much higher. What’s insidious, psychologically, is the lag time between the self-destructive behavior and the self-destruction.</p>
<p>The climate report punctures that mental bubble. It says the damage is already underway. “Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” it begins. The overview continues:<br /> </p>
<blockquote>
Summers are longer and hotter, and extended periods of unusual heat last longer than any living American has ever experienced. Winters are generally shorter and warmer. Rain comes in heavier downpours. People are seeing changes in the length and severity of seasonal allergies. … Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snowmelt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage.
</blockquote>
<p>The report goes into geographic detail, linking climate change to afflictions in each region: heat waves in Texas, Oklahoma, and the West; floods in the Midwest and Northeast; droughts in the Southwest; hurricanes and storms along the Gulf Coast and in the North Atlantic. The links are a matter of increased probability, not direct causation. But the effects don’t have to be depicted in an artist’s projection of the future. We’re feeling them now.</p>
<p>The worst thing, at this point, would be for the pain to go away. That’s what a cold winter has done to many Americans. When you’re getting buried under snow every week, it’s hard to believe the planet is warming. The report notes that by chance, during the past half-century, background factors have cooled the atmosphere, masking the contrary effects of human activity:</p>
<blockquote>
Because human-induced warming is superimposed on a background of natural variations in climate, warming is not uniform over time. A recent slowing in the rate of surface air temperature rise appears to be related to cyclic changes in the oceans and in the sun’s energy output, as well as a series of small volcanic eruptions and other factors. Nonetheless, global temperatures are still on the rise and are expected to rise further.
</blockquote>
<p>I’m grateful for those volcanoes, but they can’t bail us out forever. We have to act before it’s too late. Bring on the pain.</p>Wed, 07 May 2014 12:43:58 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/07/third_national_climate_assessment_says_climate_change_is_hurting_the_u_s.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-07T12:43:58ZNews and PoliticsClimate Change Is Already Hurting the U.S. That’s Good News.244140507001climate changeWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/07/third_national_climate_assessment_says_climate_change_is_hurting_the_u_s.htmlfalsefalsefalseA new report says climate change is wreaking havoc across the U.S. That’s good news. Here’s why:Climate Change Is Already Hurting the U.S. That’s Good News.Photo by David McNew/Getty ImagesA wildfire burns nearly 20,000 acres in California on June 1, 2013.Kenya’s Polygamy Problemhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/05/do_tradition_freedom_and_marriage_equality_justify_legalized_polygamy.html
<p>Americans are accustomed to a marriage debate between traditionalists and egalitarians. The traditionalists say marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The egalitarians say all marriages, gay or straight, should be treated the same. The egalitarians also ground their view in pluralism, arguing that the law should respect different ways of life.</p>
<p>In other parts of the world, however, these ideas aren’t always at odds. Traditionalism, equality, and pluralism sometimes converge. But they don’t converge in the way Americans might expect. What they converge on is polygamy.</p>
<p>That’s what is now happening in Kenya. Last week President Uhuru Kenyatta signed into law the Marriage Act 2014, which legalizes simultaneous marriages. According to Kenya’s presidential news agency, the new law stipulates that &quot;<a href="http://www.president.go.ke/president-kenyatta-assents-to-marriage-and-heroes-bills/">marriage is the voluntary union of a man and a woman whether in a monogamous or polygamous union</a>.”</p>
<p>Traditionalists are delighted with the new law. As Agence France-Presse <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/kenyan-president-signs-polygamy-law-112344717.html">explains</a>, “polygamy is common among traditional communities in Kenya, as well as in the country's Muslim community, which accounts for up to a fifth of the population.” In approving the legislation, lawmakers also quoted the Bible, citing <a href="http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/04/kenyas-new-polygamy-law-is-a-win-for-mens-rights-activists/361372/">King Solomon’s marriages</a>.</p>
<p>Many egalitarians also favored the bill. &quot;We are happy with the law because finally all marriages are being treated equally,&quot; the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/world/africa/kenya-polygamy-law/">director of Kenya’s Federation of Women Lawyers</a> told CNN. &quot;All marriages will be issued with marriage certificates, including customary marriages. Before this, customary marriages were treated as inferior with no marriage certificates. This opened up suffering for the women because they could not legally prove they were married to a particular man. &quot;</p>
<p>Other women objected, particularly because the law doesn’t require a man to notify his first wife when acquiring a second. Some <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27206590">Christian leaders also opposed the bill</a>. But Christian lawmakers helped pass it, in part out of respect for pluralism. &quot;Not all Kenyans are Christians,&quot; observed <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/may/polygamy-bill-dividing-kenyas-christians.html">a Christian who represents a Muslim community</a>. &quot;If church leaders want to completely outlaw polygamy, they should propose a bill. [But] that's impossible under our constitution.&quot;</p>
<p>Each side in the U.S. marriage debate can claim that the Kenyan experience supports its views. American traditionalists have warned all along that gay marriage will lead to polygamy. Egalitarians can point out that Kenya’s embrace of polygamy actually coincides with a ruthless crackdown on homosexuality, underscoring the moral emptiness of appeals to tradition.</p>
<p>But the real message from Kenya is that all the principles we invoke—tradition, equality, pluralism—are more complicated than we imagine. They go well beyond our favorite contexts, leading to results we may find repellent. Faced with those consequences, we can choose to accept them—<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html">embracing polygamy</a>, for example. Or we can rethink the limits of our ideological commitments.</p>Mon, 05 May 2014 14:45:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/05/do_tradition_freedom_and_marriage_equality_justify_legalized_polygamy.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-05T14:45:00ZNews and PoliticsIf You’re for “Marriage Equality” or “Traditional Marriage,” Should You Support Polygamy?244140505001gay marriagehomosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/05/do_tradition_freedom_and_marriage_equality_justify_legalized_polygamy.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf you’re for “marriage equality” or “traditional marriage,” should you support polygamy?If You’re for “Marriage Equality” or “Traditional Marriage,” Should You Support Polygamy?Photo by George Frey/AFP/Getty ImagesProtesters defending a U.S. polygamist in Provo, Utah, May 18, 2001.Are Conservative Christians the New Queers?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/02/religion_and_gay_marriage_are_conservative_christians_the_new_queers.html
<p>Yesterday I wrote about <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/05/antigay_religion_how_catholics_and_evangelicals_are_coming_to_accept_same.html">the decline of anti-gay religion</a>. The context was the recent <a href="http://www.eppc.org/events/faith-angle-forum-march-2014/">Faith Angle conference</a> at which speakers and participants discussed the shifting views of <a href="http://www.eppc.org/publications/john-l-allen-jr-paul-vallely-march-2014-faith-angle-forum/">Catholics</a> and <a href="http://www.eppc.org/publications/dr-cornelius-plantinga-jr-ross-douthat-march-2014-faith-angle-forum/">evangelical Protestants</a> on homosexuality. The one speaker who clearly reaffirmed his belief in the sinfulness of homosexual behavior was <a href="http://www.eppc.org/events/faith-angle-forum-march-2014/#moore">Russell Moore</a>, the president of the Southern Baptist&nbsp;<a href="http://www.russellmoore.com/blog/">Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission</a>. Even he acknowledged that his brethren were becoming more realistic and modest in their approach to the issue.</p>
<p>One thing I didn’t write about was Moore’s cultural view of the anti-gay resistance. I’m using the term <em>anti-gay</em> here to mean opposition to homosexual behavior, not to homosexual inclination, since Moore would certainly say that he loves the sinner, gay or straight. What’s striking about Moore’s perspective is that he no longer sees gay people as the deviant minority. The deviants, in his view, are Christians.</p>
<p>I don’t mean that he thinks there’s anything wrong with being Christian. I’m using the technical definition of deviance: divergence from the norm. The new norm is acceptance of homosexuality. Those who disagree are, in Moore’s language, freaks.</p>
<p>“The illusion of a Moral Majority is no longer sustainable in this country,” Moore <a href="http://www.eppc.org/publications/dr-russell-moore-molly-ball-march-2014-faith-angle-forum/">told the conference participants</a>. Given the country’s cultural transformation, he argued, pursuing “a constitutional amendment for same-sex marriage is a politically ridiculous thing to talk about.”</p>
<p>Instead, he described a future in which “Christianity becomes, with a secularizing America, increasingly strange and increasingly freakish to many people.” He continued:</p>
<blockquote>
Christianity, even in some of its most basic claims, is going to seem strange, is going to seem freakish. And I say we should embrace the freakishness of Christianity, because it enables us to talk clearly about what really matters.
</blockquote>
<p>This is a throwback to the faith’s early years, when Christians were more likely to be persecuted than to persecute others. It’s also an inversion of the relationship between Christians and gays. &nbsp;If you’re gay, this claim may seem preposterous, since Christians have workplace and marital rights that are still denied to you. But Moore is talking about the larger direction of the culture. And his political strategy reflects his belief. He no longer expects a Republican presidential candidate to support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as heterosexual. Instead, he says,</p>
<blockquote>
I would want a presidential candidate who understands the public good of marriage, and I want a presidential candidate who is not hostile toward evangelical and Catholic concerns about those things, and I would want a presidential candidate who is going to protect religious liberty and freedom of conscience.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s how you operate when you’re a minority. You look for sympathy, tolerance, and the freedom to be different. It’s what gays have been asking for all along. Now conservative Christians will learn what that’s like.</p>Fri, 02 May 2014 14:20:31 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/02/religion_and_gay_marriage_are_conservative_christians_the_new_queers.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-05-02T14:20:31ZNews and PoliticsAre Conservative Christians the New Queers?244140502001gay marriagehomosexualityreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/05/02/religion_and_gay_marriage_are_conservative_christians_the_new_queers.htmlfalsefalsefalseAre conservative Christians the new queers? A Baptist leader thinks so.Are Conservative Christians the New Queers?Photo by Yuri Gripas/AFP/Getty ImagesRussell Moore at a meeting of faith leaders with President Obama, April 15, 2014.The Soft Bigotry of Loose Exaltationhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/30/artists_are_bashing_obama_over_drones_and_surveillance_that_s_racial_progress.html
<p>President Obama’s tenure is being memorialized in art, and not in the way his idolizers had hoped. According to the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/30/us/politics/pop-culture-puts-spin-on-grim-realities-of-obama-presidency.html"><em>New York Times</em></a>,</p>
<blockquote>
Five and a half years into his presidency, Mr. Obama has had a powerful impact on the nation’s popular culture. But what many screenwriters, novelists and visual artists have seized on is not an inspirational story of the first black president. Instead they have found more compelling story lines in the bleaker, morally fraught parts of Mr. Obama’s legacy.
</blockquote>
<p>The preferred story lines are killer drones (in movies and sculpture), surveillance (in TV dramas), and the Bin Laden raid (in comic books). The article frames this in tragic terms. “There are a lot of people being let down by a president they were very enthusiastic about,” says an arts curator. “There’s a big sense of betrayal.”</p>
<p>I’m sorry these people feel betrayed. But their criticism isn’t a setback. It’s a sign of progress.</p>
<p>Electing a black president was a big deal. It was, as Henry Louis Gates Jr. wrote in <em>The Root</em>, “<a href="http://www.theroot.com/articles/history/2008/11/in_our_lifetime.html">the grand achievement of a great, collective dream</a>.” For many Americans, it was proof that we had finally transcended race.</p>
<p>But part of transcendence is getting over the achievement. You can’t spend eight years celebrating the election of a black man. You have to let him do the job and take the lumps.</p>
<p>That’s why these critical paintings, plays, and movies are healthy. They’re a sign that we’ve moved on. Artists, like others on the left, are no longer fawning over Obama because of his color. They’re treating him like any other president. And they’re discovering that a guy with roots in Kenya and Kansas can be just as vigilant, pragmatic, and lethal as the white men who came before him.</p>
<p>Our 43<sup>rd</sup> president talked about the soft bigotry of low expectations. Our 44<sup>th</sup>, in his first years in office, lived under those expectations. He was exalted as much for who he was—or, rather, who his admirers thought he was—as for what he did. Now he has to earn his praise and face the disappointment of those who idolized him. Judgment can sting, but the dream wasn’t to be judged perfect. It was to be judged on your merits.</p>Wed, 30 Apr 2014 15:23:21 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/30/artists_are_bashing_obama_over_drones_and_surveillance_that_s_racial_progress.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-30T15:23:21ZNews and PoliticsArtists Are Bashing President Obama. That’s A Sign of Racial Progress.244140430001racismdronessurveillanceWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/30/artists_are_bashing_obama_over_drones_and_surveillance_that_s_racial_progress.htmlfalsefalsefalseArtists are bashing Obama. That’s a sign of racial progress.Artists Are Bashing President Obama. That’s A Sign of Racial Progress.Photo by Johannes Eisele/AFP/Getty ImagesPosters depicting President Obama as a perpetrator of mass surveillance, June 18, 2013.Sterling vs. Eichhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marriage_is_different_from.html
<p>Is Brendan Eich as bad as Donald Sterling? If Sterling deserves to lose his team for <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/28/donald_sterling_and_the_culture_of_segregation_he_s_a_porch_racist_not_a.html">being a racist</a>—as the NBA has <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_banned_nba_commissioner_adam_silver_announces_punishment.html">just affirmed</a>—did Eich deserve to lose his job for opposing gay marriage?</p>
<p>Lots of bloggers <a href="http://americablog.com/2014/04/donald-sterling-la-clippers-racist-audio-brendan-eich-mozilla.html">think so</a>. They say Eich’s defenders are <a href="http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/04/sterlingeich">hypocrites</a> to denounce Sterling. Here’s the argument from <a href="http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/donald-sterlings-personal-beliefs-are-none-of-your-business-right/discrimination/2014/04/27/86400">David Badash</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Brendan Eich made a very public gesture to be anti-gay. Conservatives insist money is speech. Eich spoke $1000 worth of anti-gay words that are part of the public record, and directly supported ugly efforts to marginalize and disparage gay people. … If you think Brendan Eich should still be the CEO of Mozilla, or should not have been the subject of scorn and upset, then you have to support Donald Sterling.
</blockquote>
<p>And from <a href="http://www.peacock-panache.com/2014/04/outrage-hypocrisy-mozillas-brendan-eich.html">Tim Peacock</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Why does Eich get a free pass on his anti-minority statements while Sterling receives the third degree for equally repulsive behavior? Both men lead companies where no clear evidence of employee harm exists despite the potential for that harm to occur based on the leader's stated animus toward a specific minority group.
</blockquote>
<p>Wow. You’re kidding, right?</p>
<p>Eich’s behavior and Sterling’s are equally repulsive? Eich had a stated animus comparable to Sterling’s? There’s no evidence that Sterling caused harm?</p>
<p>Let’s get reacquainted with the facts. Here’s the evidence against Sterling. First, his <a href="http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249">recorded</a> <a href="http://www.zennie62blog.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-comments-anger-l-a-clippers-nba-full-transcript/">rant</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Don't come to my games. Don't bring black people, and don't come. … It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. … In your lousy fucking Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people.
</blockquote>
<p>And here’s his trail of discrimination.&nbsp;From <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4187729">Peter Keating’s article</a> in <em>ESPN the Magazine</em>:*</p>
<blockquote>
According to the Justice Department, Sterling, his wife and three of his companies have engaged in discrimination, principally by refusing to rent to African-Americans. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
according to testimony [property supervisor Sumner] Davenport gave in a discrimination lawsuit brought against Sterling in 2003 by 19 tenants and the nonprofit Housing Rights Center. (That case ended in a confidential settlement in 2005) … When Sterling first bought the Ardmore, he remarked on its odor to Davenport. &quot;That's because of all the blacks in this building, they smell, they're not clean,&quot; he said, according to Davenport's testimony. &quot;And it's because of all of the Mexicans that just sit around and smoke and drink all day.&quot; He added: &quot;So we have to get them out of here.&quot; … Two years later, Sterling resolved the Housing Rights Center case with a payout. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[A]ccording to sworn testimony given in 2004 by building manager Dixie Martin, [Sterling] said, &quot;I like Korean tenants.&quot; Raymond Henson, head of security at the building, who was standing outside the room, heard what happened next. Sterling, according to Henson's 2004 sworn statement, once again expressed his distaste for Mexicans as tenants, saying, &quot;I don't like Mexican men because they smoke, drink and just hang around the house.&quot; Later, Sterling told Martin that he knew he shouldn't discriminate. But he had the right to do so, she recalled him saying, because he owned the place.
</blockquote>
<p>Later, the <em><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/11/donald-sterling-to-pay-2725-million-to-settle-housing-discrimination-lawsuit.html">Los Angeles Times</a></em> reported:</p>
<blockquote>
Sterling has agreed to pay a record $2.725 million to settle allegations that he discriminated against African Americans, Hispanics and families with children at scores of apartment buildings he owns in and around Los Angeles. … In court filings, Justice Department lawyers presented evidence that the Sterlings made statements “indicating that African Americans and Hispanics were not desirable tenants and that they preferred Korean tenants” …
</blockquote>
<p>From a <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/23649/legal-filings-show-frustration-of-clipper-gms">court declaration</a> by former Clippers General Manager Elgin Baylor:</p>
<blockquote>
Players Sam Cassell, Elton Brand and Corey Maggette complained to me that Donald Sterling would bring women into the locker room after games, while the players were showering, and make comments such as, “Look at those beautiful black bodies.”
</blockquote>
<p>Former Clippers GM Paul Phipps adds this quote from then-Villanova coach <a href="http://www.jeffpearlman.com/the-eccentric-donald-sterling/">Rollie Massimino</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Don looks at me and he says, “I wanna know why you think you can coach these niggers.”
</blockquote>
<p>That’s Sterling’s record: a long trail of repeatedly alleged, well-substantiated animus and discrimination.</p>
<p>What about Eich? Here’s what Mozilla’s <a href="https://blog.lizardwrangler.com/2014/03/26/building-a-global-diverse-inclusive-mozilla-project-addressing-controversy/">executive chairwoman</a>, Mitchell Baker, said about him on March 26:</p>
<blockquote>
My experience is that Brendan is as committed to opportunity and diversity inside Mozilla as anyone, and more so than many. This commitment to opportunity for all within Mozilla has been a key foundation of our work for many years. I see it in action regularly. … I was surprised in 2012, when his donation in support of Proposition 8 came to light, to learn that Brendan and I aren’t in close alignment here, since I’ve never seen any indication of anything other than inclusiveness in our work together …
</blockquote>
<p>And again in <a href="http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/">early April</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness.
</blockquote>
<p>Christie Koehler, Mozilla’s head of education and a self-described “queer woman,” <a href="http://subfictional.com/2014/03/24/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/">added</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Certainly it would be problematic if Brendan’s behavior within Mozilla was explicitly discriminatory, or implicitly so in the form of repeated microagressions. I haven’t personally seen this (although to be clear, I was not part of Brendan’s reporting structure until today). To the contrary, over the years I have watched Brendan be an ally in many areas and bring clarity and leadership when needed.
</blockquote>
<p>Eric Shepherd, Mozilla’s developer documentation lead, <a href="http://www.bitstampede.com/2014/03/29/on-brendan-eich-as-ceo-of-mozilla/">wrote</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
in the more than eight years I’ve worked at Mozilla, I’ve never known Brendan to treat anyone differently based on their gender, sexual orientation, color, religion, eye color, height, weight, or anything else …
</blockquote>
<p>Matthew MacPherson, a Mozilla software developer and self-described “bisexual guy,” <a href="http://words.tofumatt.com/2014/03/26/on-including-the-uninclusive/">noted</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
We added trans benefits and a Code of Conduct with Brendan in a leadership position. I have spoken to no queer Mozilla people who feel Eich has ever made them uncomfortable.
</blockquote>
<p><em>The New York Times</em> concluded that “<a href="http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/eich-steps-down-as-mozilla-chief/">there is no indication that Mr. Eich behaved in a biased manner at work</a>.”</p>
<p>In short, there’s no comparison between Sterling’s behavior and Eich’s. The only evidence of anti-gay bias on Eich’s part is the money he gave <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html">six years ago</a> to a ballot measure to preserve the definition of marriage as heterosexual. Eich has never explained his reasoning, but it’s entirely plausible that when he gave that money (at a time when Barack Obama and thousands of other Democratic officials didn’t support same-sex marriage), he agreed with <a href="https://blog.mozilla.org/planet/2012/03/06/concerns-with-planet-content/#comment-41204">another Mozilla employee</a> that gay couples should have “<a href="http://blog.gerv.net/2012/03/coalition-for-marriage-petition/">exactly the same legal rights</a>” as straight couples, but under a different name. That position, grounded in a traditional understanding of marriage as an <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.html">essentially procreative</a> institution, is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html">different from broad anti-gay bias</a> and from <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html">opposition to interracial marriage</a>.</p>
<p>If you believe that a person who withholds the term “marriage” from same-sex relationships is bigoted, prove it. Surely such a bigot will have said or done something, beyond that position, to show anti-gay bias. Some supervisor, colleague, subordinate, or associate will step forward with an allegation. That’s what has happened, <a href="http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212">again</a> and <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-sterling-racist-history-2014-4">again</a>, with Sterling. Yet after 16 years at Mozilla, nobody has come forward with such a story about Eich. At some point, you have to ask yourself why. Is it possible that a person can oppose same-sex marriage <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html">without treating gay and straight people differently</a> in any other context? Is it possible that the assumption of bigotry was misconceived?</p>
<p>No, Sterling is nothing like Eich. And in our rush to vilify our adversaries, that should give us pause.</p>
<p><em><strong>Read more about Clippers owner <a href="http://www.slate.com/content/slate/topics/d/donald_sterling.html">Donald Sterling</a>.</strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong>*Correction, May 5, 2014:</strong> This post originally misstated that an excerpt from ESPN the Magazine was from Sports Illustrated.</em></p>
<p><em><strong></strong></em></p>
<p><em><strong></strong></em></p>Tue, 29 Apr 2014 19:04:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marriage_is_different_from.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-29T19:04:00ZNews and PoliticsDonald Sterling Is Just Like Brendan Eich? You Must Be Joking.244140429001gay marriageracismdonald sterlingWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/29/donald_sterling_vs_brendan_eich_opposing_gay_marriage_is_different_from.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Sterling is just like Brendan Eich? You Must Be Joking. Here are the facts.Donald Sterling Is Just Like Brendan Eich? You Must Be Joking.Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty ImagesDonald Sterling at a Clippers game, April 21, 2014.Donald Sterling, Porch Racisthttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/28/donald_sterling_and_the_culture_of_segregation_he_s_a_porch_racist_not_a.html
<p>For years, people said Donald Sterling was a <a href="http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20140426/commentary-clippers-cant-play-for-donald-sterling-after-racist-remarks">closet racist</a>. Now, from an <a href="http://deadspin.com/exclusive-the-extended-donald-sterling-tape-1568291249">audio recording</a> released by <em><a href="http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-sterling-clippers-owner-black-people-racist-audio-magic-johnson/">TMZ</a></em>, we know that’s not true. Sterling isn’t a closet racist. He’s a porch racist, obsessed with maintaining the appearance of segregation.</p>
<p>Racists, like the people they stereotype, come in many varieties. Paula Deen’s version is <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/06/19/paula-deen-admits-in-deposition-to-using-n-word-telling-racist-jokes-report/">coarseness</a>. Cliven Bundy’s is <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1404/25/nday.06.html">ignorance</a>. Sterling’s is cowardice. He has a <a href="http://deadspin.com/your-complete-quotable-guide-to-decades-of-donald-sterl-1568047212">long track record</a> of bigotry. But again and again in the <a href="http://www.zennie62blog.com/2014/04/27/donald-sterling-racist-comments-anger-l-a-clippers-nba-full-transcript/">conversation with his girlfriend</a>, Sterling—or a man who impersonates him perfectly, while the real Sterling mysteriously fails to deny that the voice is his—invokes society’s opinions. You have to practice racism, he argues, because otherwise people will think ill of you.</p>
<p>Sterling seems to have told his girlfriend, V. Stiviano, that somebody close to him saw her on Instagram with Magic Johnson and said something critical about it to Sterling. The comment, or Sterling’s interpretation of it, focused on the fact that she was with a black man. Maybe Sterling saw a sexual overtone in the picture or in his friend’s perception of it. What’s clear is the focus of Sterling’s distress. As he puts it to Stiviano: “It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people.”</p>
<p>At its core, this is plain old racism. But its form is peculiar. What upsets Sterling is that Stiviano is “broadcasting” her associations:</p>
<blockquote>
I don’t want you to have hate. … I want you to love them—
<em>privately</em>. … But why publicize it on the Instagram, and why bring it to my games? … You can sleep with them, you can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that [Instagram] and not to bring them to my games.
</blockquote>
<p>It’s one thing to talk such filth about people you don’t know. What elevates Sterling above Bundy on the creep scale is that he thinks and talks this way even about a man he knows: Magic Johnson.</p>
<blockquote>
I’ve known him well, and he should be admired. And I’m just saying that it’s too bad you can’t admire him privately … Admire him, bring him here, feed him, fuck him, I don’t care. You can do anything. But don’t put him on an Instagram for the world to have to see, so they have to call me. And don’t bring him to my games. OK?
</blockquote>
<p>What a bizarre objection. Sterling, in private, claims to admire Johnson. Yet he insists that Stiviano keep this sentiment to herself. What Sterling is shoving into the closet isn’t racism. It’s interracial friendship.</p>
<p>Intertwined with this racial anxiety is sexual anxiety:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling: </strong>You’re perceived as either a Latina or a white girl. Why can’t you be walking publicly with black people? … I guess that you don’t know that. Maybe you’re stupid. Maybe you don’t know what people think of you. It does matter, yeah. It matters.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> Do you know that I’m mixed?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> No, I don’t know that. … [I]t bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> You associate with black people.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> I’m not you, and you’re not me. You’re supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl.
</blockquote>
<p>This is slut-shaming with an interracial twist. But again, what’s peculiar is Sterling’s obsession with appearance. He chides Stiviano, telling her she’s perceived as Latina or white. She informs him that she’s part black. He is unmoved. “You’re supposed to be a delicate white or a delicate Latina girl,” he insists. What matters is perception, not reality.</p>
<p>Repeatedly, Sterling attributes racism to the world, not to himself:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> It's the world. You go to Israel, the blacks are just treated like dogs.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> So do you have to treat them like that too?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> The white Jews, there's white Jews and black Jews, do you understand? …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> And is that right?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> It isn't a question—we don't evaluate what's right and wrong, we live in a society. We live in a culture. We have to live within that culture.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> But shouldn't we take a stand for what's wrong? And be the change and the difference?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> I don't want to change the culture, because I can't. It's too big and too [unintelligible].
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> But you can change yourself.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> I don't want to change.
</blockquote>
<p>What a wretched moment. Sterling, a rich man with immense power over a city and millions of fans, pleads weakness. But eventually he admits it’s a matter of will. He has surrendered not to the world, but to the worst in himself.</p>
<p>The conversation continues:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> I don’t understand what? That racism still is a lie?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> No, that there’s a culture. That people feel certain things. Hispanics feel certain things towards blacks. Blacks feel certain things towards other groups. It's been that way historically, and it will always be that way.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> But it’s not that way in my heart and in my mind.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> But maybe you want to adjust to the world.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> But why, if the world doesn’t do anything for me and they don’t make me happy? … I can’t be racist in my heart.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> Then that’s good. I’m living in a culture. And I have to live within the culture. So that’s the way it is. … You live with your heart. You can’t be flexible.
</blockquote>
<p>To Sterling, flexibility is a virtue. Yet for some reason, it’s the nonracists who have to adapt to the racists, rather than the other way around. The conversation then turns to respect:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> I am flexible. I understand that that’s the way you were raised and that’s your culture and I’m respectful—
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> Well, why do you have to disrespect them, those that are--
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Stiviano:</strong> Who am I disrespecting?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Sterling:</strong> The world before you.
</blockquote>
<p>In Sterling’s mind, respect, like flexibility, is owed to culture, not to individuals. Conscience must bow to the community.</p>
<p>And the saddest thing is, he got it wrong. The world has changed. Sterling, born during the Jim Crow era, finishes his career in shame, despised by fans and rebuked by his country’s first black president. He sold his conscience for the respect of decent people—and ended up with neither.</p>
<p><em><strong>Read more about Clippers owner <a href="http://www.slate.com/content/slate/topics/d/donald_sterling.html">Donald Sterling</a>.</strong></em><br /> </p>Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:58:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/28/donald_sterling_and_the_culture_of_segregation_he_s_a_porch_racist_not_a.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-28T14:58:00ZNews and PoliticsDonald Sterling Isn’t a Closet Racist. He’s a Porch Racist.244140428001racismdonald sterlingWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/28/donald_sterling_and_the_culture_of_segregation_he_s_a_porch_racist_not_a.htmlfalsefalsefalseDonald Sterling isn't a closet racist. He's a porch racist.Donald Sterling Isn’t a Closet Racist. He’s a Porch Racist.Photo by Robert Mora/Getty ImagesDonald Sterling at the California Gold Star Awards dinner gala, April 5, 2003.Anti-Semitism: The Numbershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/24/anti_semitism_in_europe_statistics_from_france_germany_the_u_k_and_other.html
<p>Yesterday I wrote about the <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/kansas_ukraine_israel_is_anti_semitism_being_overhyped.html">exaggeration and exploitation of anti-Semitism</a>. I discussed three cases: 1) the <a href="http://www.kansascity.com/2014/04/15/4961084/suspect-in-jewish-facility-shootings.html">shooting of three people</a> at two Jewish facilities in Kansas, 2) the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/israel-irked-by-uns-tacit-naziisrael-remark/2014/04/14/01b5a818-c41b-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html">campaign against a U.N. official</a> for alleged anti-Jewish bias, and 3) an <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/18/antisemitic-donetsk-peoples-republic-ukraine-hoax">anti-Semitic flyer in Ukraine</a>. With regard to the Kansas shooting, I cited data from the <a href="http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr-publications#Hate">FBI</a> and the <a href="http://www.adl.org/press-center/press-releases/anti-semitism-usa/adl-audit-anti-semitic-incidents-2013.html">Anti-Defamation League</a> showing that anti-Semitic hate crimes have been declining in the U.S. I contrasted these data with a <a href="http://ejpress.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=48658">statement from the European Jewish Congress</a>, which said that the shooting “demonstrates that neo-Nazis and anti-Semites are becoming emboldened” and that “we are witnessing an intolerable rise in neo-Nazi violence on a global scale.”</p>
<p>In comments on the article, two readers criticized this juxtaposition. “The European Jewish Congress is talking about incidence of Anti-Semitism around the world,” wrote Lon. “Falling rates in the US don't actually contradict what they are quoted as saying.” Another commenter, Emily, added that “using US hate crime measures to infer anything about worldwide attitudes towards Jews or anti-Jewish violence is na&iuml;ve.”</p>
<p>Lon and Emily are right. I shouldn’t have framed the FBI and ADL data as a rebuttal to the EJC. What the FBI and ADL data show is that anti-Semitic hate crimes in the U.S. have been declining and that the Kansas shooting is an outlier. These data don’t address trends in Europe or elsewhere. And the data in Europe are much more complicated.</p>
<p>There’s no reliable index of anti-Semitic incidents worldwide, because each country defines or compiles these incidents differently. The next best thing is <a href="http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013_antisemitism-update-2002-2012_web_0.pdf">this table</a>, published six months ago by the <a href="http://fra.europa.eu/en">European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights</a>. It shows trends in indices used by different countries during the previous decade:</p>
<p>Over the 10-year period, the indices in France and Germany ended up in a lower range than where they began. The index in Sweden ended up in a higher range. The indices in Austria, Belgium, Ireland, and Slovakia went up and down. The index in the Czech Republic peaked in 2009 and has been falling since.</p>
<p>Using the terrific Web site of the <a href="http://antisemitism.org.il/?lang=en">Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism</a>, I went back through all the available <a href="http://antisemitism.org.il/list/4?lang=en">national reports on anti-Semitic incidents</a> that have been published this year. Here’s a <a href="http://bnaibrith.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Audit-2013-English.pdf">10-year graph from Canada</a>, showing an increase from 2005 to 2010, albeit with a slight drop last year:</p>
<p>Here’s a <a href="http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202013.pdf">five-year chart from the U.K.</a>, more suggestive of decline:</p>
<p>Here’s a <a href="http://antisemitism.org.il/sites/default/files/images/%20%D0%B2%20%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8%20%D0%B2%202013%20%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B42.pdf">similar table from Russia</a>, again suggesting a negative trend line. The top row, translated to English, counts victims of hate crimes (presumably all these crimes were anti-Semitic, since the report is titled, &quot;Manifestations of anti-Semitism&quot;). The bottom row counts victims of clearly anti-Semitic attacks.</p>
<p>It’s best to look at changes over a decade or more. Here, for instance, are the only decade-long numbers I’ve seen from the Netherlands (published in the <a href="http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra-2013_antisemitism-update-2002-2012_web_0.pdf">EAFR report</a>):</p>
<p>On balance, it appears to me that more of these countries show declines than show increases. But that’s subject to statistical argument, and it doesn’t change the fact that the trends in Europe aren’t as clear as the trend in the U.S. As the Ukraine and U.N. cases illustrate, anti-Semitism is sometimes hyped or manufactured for political advantage. And in the U.S., the Kansas shooting is an outlier. But in some countries, the rate of anti-Semitic incidents is holding steady or even increasing. Each country is different.</p>Thu, 24 Apr 2014 21:57:26 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/24/anti_semitism_in_europe_statistics_from_france_germany_the_u_k_and_other.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-24T21:57:26ZNews and PoliticsAnti-Semitism Trends in Europe Are More Complex Than In the U.S.244140424001judaismanti-semitismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/24/anti_semitism_in_europe_statistics_from_france_germany_the_u_k_and_other.htmlfalsefalsefalseAnti-Semitism trends in Europe are more complex than in the U.S. Here are some of the numbers:Anti-Semitism Trends in Europe Are More Complex Than In the U.S.Photo by Artur Reszko/AFP/Getty ImagesSwastikas defacing a monument that commemorated an anti-Jewish pogrom, Jedwabne, Poland, September 1, 2011.Creationism, Evolution, and Antibioticshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/21/evolution_poll_it_s_ok_to_be_a_creationist_just_lay_off_the_antibiotics.html
<p>Do Americans believe in evolution? That depends on who’s evolving. According to a new <a href="http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/AP-GfK-March-2014-Poll-Topline-Final_SCIENCE.pdf">Associated Press poll</a>, only a slight majority believes that humans evolved through natural selection. But almost 90 percent of us believe that bacteria evolve resistance to antibiotics. And that belief is far more important.</p>
<p>The poll, taken by GfK Public Affairs, shows almost total consensus on the questions most likely to affect the average respondent directly. Look at the table below. More than 90 percent are confident that mental illness is a brain-related medical condition. More than 90 percent are confident that our genes help determine who we are. More than 80 percent are confident that childhood vaccines are safe and effective.&nbsp; For each of these statements, fewer than 5 percent say they’re not at all confident.</p>
<p>As the questions drift from direct personal impacts to cosmic hypotheses, the level of certainty drops. Only about 55 to 60 percent are confident that worldwide temperatures are rising due to man-made greenhouse gases, that humans and other life forms evolved through natural selection, or that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Still, these are majorities. The only statement in which a bare majority lacks confidence is that the universe began with a big bang 13.8 billion years ago. And that finding might understate belief in the big bang, since it specifies, with a decimal point, an age that some respondents might feel unqualified to vouch for.</p>
<p>To me, the climate change numbers are the most troubling. They illustrate a weakness in our capacity to reason. Climate change, like smoking, vaccines, or mental illness, is a material problem that affects many people. But because its effects are diffuse and delayed, respondents are less compelled to face it. When your uncle dies of cancer, you can no longer ignore the perils of smoking. But when your great-grandchild suffers from global warming, it’s too late for you to get the message.</p>
<p>The good news is that on evolutionary questions, this tendency to be moved by material practicality works in our favor. Compare the poll’s findings on human evolution with its findings on microbes. Only 55 percent of respondents are at least somewhat confident that “life on earth, including human beings, evolved through a process of natural selection.” But 88 percent are at least somewhat confident that “overusing antibiotics causes the development of drug-resistant bacteria.” Only 31 percent are very confident in the human evolution statement, but 65 percent are very confident in the antibiotics statement.</p>
<p>If you’re a biologist, these numbers may gall you. How can people be so vain and obstinate, refusing to acknowledge that we, too, are products of evolution? But if you’re a doctor, a patient, or just another citizen, the willingness of your neighbors to accept microbial evolution is far more important than their unwillingness to accept human evolution. You don’t need them to concede the relationship between humans and apes. You just need them to understand their doctor, and follow her advice, when she explains <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/features/antibioticresistancethreats/">why they shouldn’t use antibiotics</a> for a minor infection.</p>
<p>For most people who refuse to accept evolution, creationism is a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">compartmentalized fairy tale</a>. It protects their <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/26/creationist_scientists_examples_of_religious_believers_who_practice_good.html">faith in God</a> and in <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.html">human uniqueness</a>. (In the AP poll, 72 percent of respondents say they’re at least somewhat confident that “the universe is so complex, there must be a supreme being guiding its creation.”) From the standpoint of scientific literacy, it would be better if people didn’t believe in fairy tales. But from the standpoint of public health and a well-functioning society, we just need them to lay off the antibiotics.</p>Mon, 21 Apr 2014 20:46:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/21/evolution_poll_it_s_ok_to_be_a_creationist_just_lay_off_the_antibiotics.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-21T20:46:00ZNews and PoliticsMore People Believe in Bacterial Evolution Than in Human Evolution. Thank God.244140421001creationismevolutionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/21/evolution_poll_it_s_ok_to_be_a_creationist_just_lay_off_the_antibiotics.htmlfalsefalsefalseIt’s OK to be a creationist. But you’d better be an evolutionist about antibiotics.More People Believe in Bacterial Evolution Than in Human Evolution. Thank God.Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesSomething to believe in.Obama, Biden, and Gay Marriagehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/20/obama_and_biden_not_mozilla_illustrate_how_to_advance_gay_marriage.html
<p>In the days since <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.html">Brendan Eich quit Mozilla</a>, supporters of same-sex marriage have <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/15/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_mozilla_conor_friedersdorf_explains_how_gay_people.html">debated the wisdom</a> of <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/15/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_mozilla_conor_friedersdorf_explains_how_gay_people.html">using pressure</a> to <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/16/moore-award-nominee-49/">punish their opponents</a>. Eich, an executive with <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html">no known record of antigay bias</a> in the workplace, was forced out for having donated $1,000 to the 2008 campaign for Proposition 8, a ballot measure that said California would recognize marriage only between a man and a woman.</p>
<p>One way to cut through debates like this one is to set aside the rhetoric and look at a real-life case in which progress toward same-sex marriage was achieved. In today’s <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/20/magazine/how-the-president-got-to-i-do-on-same-sex-marriage.html"><em>New York Times Magazine</em></a>, Jo Becker, the author of <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Forcing-Spring-Inside-Marriage-Equality/dp/1594204446/?tag=slatmaga-20">Forcing the Spring: Inside the Fight for Marriage Equality,</a></em> tells such a story. It’s about President Obama and Vice President Biden. The story suggests that pressure is important but that partial acceptance is natural, persuasion is central, and progress is incremental.</p>
<p>Becker’s article, excerpted from her book, ties together several narrative threads. Here are four of them.</p>
<p><strong>1. Biden’s evolution.</strong> In an interview, Biden tells Becker several stories about his family’s encounters with homosexuality. The first story, Becker writes, involved</p>
<blockquote>
a summer afternoon when he [Biden] was in his 20s. He was sitting on the beach in Delaware with his father and some friends when an older gay couple walked over to say hello. His father, a Realtor, had sold them their apartment in a building nearby. The elder Biden hugged both men and said, “Let me introduce you to my family.” One of the younger Biden’s buddies made a derogatory remark about the couple, and his father’s reaction to it stayed with him all these years. “He says: ‘As soon as they get in the apartment, you go up to the ninth floor. You walk up and knock on the door, and you apologize to them.’ ” When his friend refused, his father said, “Well, goddamn it, you’re not welcome in my house anymore.”
</blockquote>
<p>So Biden learned as a young man that it was unacceptable to make derogatory remarks about same-sex couples. Here’s his next story:</p>
<blockquote>
Biden then described another day, years later, when his own young son looked up at him quizzically after seeing two men headed off to work kiss each other goodbye on a busy street corner. “I said, ‘They love each other, honey,’ and that was it. So it was never anything that was a struggle in my mind.” The truth was, Biden said, other than being concerned as a Catholic that churches not be forced to perform ceremonies for gay couples, “I didn’t see a problem with it,” and he never had.
</blockquote>
<p>So Biden didn’t just believe it was wrong to insult gay people. He affirmed same-sex partnerships, to his own kids, as simple love. At the same time, he favored a religious freedom exception. In 1996, he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. And when he ran for president in 2008, he endorsed civil unions, not marriage, for same-sex couples.</p>
<p>That’s a complex set of beliefs: Antigay slurs are unacceptable; same-sex love should be affirmed to children; churches shouldn’t have to perform same-sex weddings; states shouldn’t have to recognize other states’ gay marriages; same-sex relationships can be acknowledged as civil unions. Was Biden, at any point along this trajectory, a bigot? It’s hard to see how that’s a fair use of the word.</p>
<p><strong>2. How Biden crossed the marriage line.</strong> Becker describes an April 2012 fund-raising event at the home of a same-sex couple. There, Chad Griffin, a gay-rights political operative, “watched the hosts’ two children, ages 5 and 7, press flowers and a note into Biden’s hand.” Griffin decided to ask Biden this question:</p>
<blockquote>
When you came in tonight, you met Michael and Sonny and their two beautiful kids. And I wonder if you can just sort of talk in a frank, honest way about your own personal views as it relates to equality, but specifically as it relates to marriage equality.
</blockquote>
<p>Biden replied:</p>
<blockquote>
I look at those two beautiful kids. I wish everybody could see this. All you got to do is look in the eyes of those kids. And no one can wonder, no one can wonder whether or not they are cared for and nurtured and loved and reinforced. And folks, what’s happening is, everybody is beginning to see it. Things are changing so rapidly, it’s going to become a political liability in the near term for an individual to say, ‘I oppose gay marriage.’ … And my job—our job—is to keep this momentum rolling to the inevitable.
</blockquote>
<p>An aide who was in the room tells Becker that “being in that house, seeing that couple with their kids, the switch flipped” for Biden.</p>
<p>That’s how Biden crossed the line. It’s the same way millions of other Americans have crossed it. You accept change a little bit at a time. Eventually, you have too much reassuring experience with gay people to refuse them the last thing you were holding back: the word <em>marriage</em>. What changes your heart isn’t condemnation or intimidation. It’s sympathy, and often love.</p>
<p><strong>3. How Obama approached the public. </strong>Like Biden, Obama held a mix of positions. He repealed the military’s antigay employment policy and withdrew the federal government’s defense of DOMA, yet he continued to withhold his endorsement of same-sex marriage. In Becker’s account, however, Obama didn’t really need persuasion on the merits. What he needed was a political path, a way to persuade uneasy voters that same-sex marriage should be legal.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The answer came from Ken Mehlman, the former campaign manager for President George W. Bush and ex-chairman of the Republican National Committee:</p>
<blockquote>
He told [Obama adviser David] Plouffe that voters were far more likely to be supportive once they understood that gay couples wanted to marry for the same reason straight people did: It was a matter of love and commitment. Polling indicated that voters would best respond if the issue was framed around shared American values: the country’s fundamental promise of equality; voters’ antipathy toward government intrusion into their private lives; and the religious principle of treating others the way one would like to be treated. Mehlman surveyed 5,000 Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and found that a majority supported some form of legal recognition of gay relationships.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Love</em>, <em>commitment</em>, <em>shared value</em>s, <em>religious principles</em>. That’s how you move people. If you condemn anything short of marriage as bigotry, you disrupt this process. In Mehlman’s data, a majority of Republicans and Republican leaners didn’t agree on same-sex marriage. What they agreed on, as a baseline, was “some form of legal recognition of gay relationships.” And that, Mehlman wisely recognized, was a good start.</p>
<p>When Obama came out as a gay-marriage supporter in a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-robin-roberts-abc-news-interview-president-obama/story?id=16316043">May 2012 interview</a> with ABC’s Robin Roberts, he used many of Mehlman’s themes. He added:</p>
<blockquote>
Different communities are arriving at different conclusions at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate.&nbsp;… One of the things that I'd like to see is that a conversation continue in a respectful way. I think it's important to recognize that folks who feel very strongly that marriage should be defined narrowly as between a man and a woman—many of them are not coming at it from a mean-spirited perspective. They're coming at it because they care about families. And they have a different understanding, in terms of, you know, what the word &quot;marriage&quot; should mean.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Healthy debate</em>. <em>Respectful conversation</em>. <em>Not mean-spirited</em>.</p>
<p>This message—that a fair-minded, non-bigoted person could oppose same-sex marriage—was what Griffin and David Boies, an attorney fighting Proposition 8, sought to destroy. In January 2013, Becker writes,</p>
<blockquote>
Charles J. Cooper, the Washington-based lawyer charged with defending the constitutionality of Proposition 8, filed an opening brief with the Supreme Court, citing the president’s interview with Robin Roberts to argue that bans like Proposition 8 were not motivated by impermissible prejudice. Cooper’s brief quoted Obama as saying that those who opposed same-sex marriage were not coming at it “from a meanspirited perspective,” and it used Obama’s “healthy debate” language to argue that this was a matter for voters and legislatures to decide, not the courts.
</blockquote>
<p>According to Becker, at a subsequent White House meeting, Boies warned Obama’s advisers that the president’s failure to insist on a constitutionally guaranteed right to same-sex marriage would “be deeply harmful, signaling that even someone as friendly to gay voters as Obama considered their argument [for such a right] a bridge too far.” Obama had to abandon the middle, lest anyone conclude that one could respect gay people without insisting on federally mandated same-sex marriage.</p>
<p><strong>4. How Obama pitched Kennedy. </strong>Becker describes how the administration dealt with the Supreme Court:</p>
<blockquote>
[I]f Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, whom everyone presumed would cast the deciding vote in the DOMA case, became convinced that the only way he could strike down DOMA was to adopt a rule of law that would force every state in the nation to allow gay couples to wed, he might get cold feet. “We potentially run the risk of losing him,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. told me, reflecting on his concerns at the time. …
</blockquote>
<p>Obama wanted to offer Kennedy and the rest of the justices an incremental way to decide the Proposition 8 case that would not force them to overturn bans across the country, a position that he worried the court would find untenable. They arrived at what they referred to as the “eight-state solution.” … The plan was to file a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that in states that recognized same-sex domestic partnerships, it was particularly irrational to ban marriage because doing so could not be said to further any governmental interest.</p>
<p>In the end, the Court confined its decision to California alone. But the eight-state offer illustrated how Supreme Court cases, like other debates, are often won. You don’t demand all or nothing. You try to move your audience a step at a time.</p>
<p>The headline on Becker’s article—“How the President Got to ‘I Do’ on Same-Sex Marriage”—is apt. Our progress toward gay marriage is a courtship, not a war. It takes understanding, respect, persuasion, and patience. Don’t screw it up.</p>Sun, 20 Apr 2014 14:53:29 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/20/obama_and_biden_not_mozilla_illustrate_how_to_advance_gay_marriage.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-20T14:53:29ZNews and PoliticsWant Marriage Equality? Follow the Obama/Biden Model, Not the Mozilla Model.244140420001homosexualitygay marriagereligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/20/obama_and_biden_not_mozilla_illustrate_how_to_advance_gay_marriage.htmlfalsefalsefalseWant marriage equality? Follow the Obama/Biden model, not the Mozilla model.Want Marriage Equality? Follow the Obama/Biden Model, Not the Mozilla Model.Photo by SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Obama, Vice President Biden, and their wives at a prayer service at Washington National Cathedral, Jan. 22, 2013.The Bear in the Woodshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/12/russia_invaded_georgia_and_ukraine_who_s_next_in_eastern_europe.html
<p>Russia feels wronged.</p>
<p>A month after seizing and annexing Crimea—and with thousands of troops still massed on its border with Ukraine—Russia says it’s being unfairly portrayed as a menace.</p>
<p>&quot;The constant accusations against us by [NATO’s] secretary general convince us that the alliance is trying to use the crisis in Ukraine to rally its ranks in the face of an imaginary external threat,” <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/10/us-ukraine-crisis-russia-nato-idUSBREA390FI20140410">protests Russia’s foreign ministry</a>. Sergey Lavrov, the foreign minister, says NATO is catering to the “<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/europe/satellites-show-russia-mobilizing-near-ukraine-nato-says.html">absolutely groundless fears, phobias and ambitions of a minority of its country members</a>.”</p>
<p>Good luck soothing your neighbors, Mr. Lavrov. Your deeds speak louder than your words.</p>
<p>In politics, clever propaganda can give you a marginal advantage. But past a certain point, reality overpowers spin. One big crime or fiasco wipes out all the rhetoric. Kermit Gosnell, the ruthless rogue abortionist, gutted public confidence in the regulation of clinics. The horrendous debut of healthcare.gov soured millions of people on government-supervised health insurance. The invasion of Iraq, followed by years of chaos and a failure to find weapons of mass destruction, destroyed Americans’ appetite for war.</p>
<p>That kind of reality now dominates Eastern Europe. Russia is eating its neighbors. Six years ago it <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/13/world/europe/2008-georgia-russia-conflict/">severed two provinces from Georgia</a>. This year it devoured Crimea. Now it has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/11/world/europe/satellites-show-russia-mobilizing-near-ukraine-nato-says.html">thousands of troops deployed near Ukraine’s eastern border</a>—up to 40,000, according to NATO estimates—backed by helicopters, tanks, and artillery. Meanwhile, Russia is <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26975204">threatening to cut off its gas supply</a> to Ukraine and, by extension, European countries that rely on pipelines running through Ukraine.</p>
<p>The countries in Russia’s path aren’t stupid. Lithuania has announced coordinated defense measures “<a href="https://www.premier.gov.pl/en/news/news/prime-ministers-of-poland-and-lithuania-meet-in-brussels.html">in the context of threats</a>.” Poland is asking for <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/05/us-ukraine-crisis-poland-nato-idUSBREA340BS20140405">two heavy NATO brigades</a>. Romania is conducting <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2014/04/10/world/europe/ap-eu-romania-us-military-exercises.html">military exercises with the U.S.</a> and requesting “<a href="http://www.rferl.org/content/romania-nato-russia/25328974.html">an eastward repositioning of NATO's naval, air and ground forces</a>.” Estonia is <a href="http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/news/AN_1396540545343170000/nato-to-open-air-base-in-estonia-in-response-to-ukraine-conflict.aspx">turning one of its military airports into a NATO base</a>. &quot;<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/09/us-ukraine-crisis-estonia-idUSBREA371Z720140409">Everyone in Europe, and not only in Europe, should be worried</a>,” says Estonia’s prime minister.</p>
<p>These countries don’t need NATO propaganda to tell them <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bear_in_the_woods">Russia is a threat</a>. Russia’s troops, tanks, and land grabs have made that case convincingly. You can’t talk your way out of this one, Mr. Lavrov. The only way out is to take your guns and go home.</p>Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:33:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/12/russia_invaded_georgia_and_ukraine_who_s_next_in_eastern_europe.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-12T11:33:00ZNews and PoliticsNo, the Russian Threat Is Not “Imaginary”244140412001russiaukraineWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/12/russia_invaded_georgia_and_ukraine_who_s_next_in_eastern_europe.htmlfalsefalsefalseNo, Russia is not an "imaginary" threat. Eastern Europe is moving to deter another invasion.No, the Russian Threat Is Not “Imaginary”Photo by Alexey Druzhinin/AFP/Getty ImagesRussian President Vladimir Putin meets senior military officers on March 28, 2014, as he congratulates the armed forces for taking over Crimea.Coming Out Is Contagioushttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/09/jason_collins_michael_sam_derrick_gordon_is_open_homosexuality_contagious.html
<p>First it was <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/10/23/jason_collins_hasn_t_been_signed_by_an_nba_team_is_homophobia_to_blame.html">Jason Collins</a>. Then <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/michael_sam_s_father_shows_gay_men_can_have_better_family_values_than_straight.html">Michael Sam</a>. Now Derrick Gordon.</p>
<p>One openly gay athlete leads to another, and another, and another. Collins is in the NBA. Sam, a college football player, is trying out for the NFL. Gordon, a sophomore at the University of Massachusetts, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/04/09/gay_umass_player_after_years_of_distress_umass_sophomore_derrick_gordon.html">came out today</a> as the first openly gay player in Division I men’s basketball.</p>
<p>In an <a href="http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10754694/derrick-gordon-umass-basketball-player-becomes-first-openly-gay-ncaa-division-player">interview with ESPN</a>, Gordon says Collins played an important role in encouraging him:</p>
<blockquote>
When he came out, I wanted to come out the next day. It was a relief, like “About time!” Like, “Finally, it happened!” But I still couldn’t jump the gun, because he wasn’t in the NBA at the time when he came out. But when he went back, that’s when I started to build a little more confidence. … I watched as he was getting subbed into the game, and everybody stood up and started clapping. And I was visualizing myself as that being me, but for college. … And it definitely put a huge smile on my face.
</blockquote>
<p>Gordon says he spoke to Collins after Collins came out (but before Gordon did):</p>
<blockquote>
He was just really giving me advice and just letting me know that if I ever need anything or need to talk to him about anything, that he’s always going to be there for me. He gave me the confidence and the boost that I needed to put me over the top to coming out.
</blockquote>
<p>Gordon also cites Sam as a positive example:</p>
<blockquote>
People think that gays shouldn’t be allowed to play sports, or they’re too soft, or this and that. From the looks of it, I know Michael Sam isn’t soft, and Jason Collins isn’t. And for one, I’m not soft. And I think people misinterpret that, when it comes to being gay. … I’m still going to be the beast guy that I am.
</blockquote>
<p>Essentially, Gordon’s interview confirms that public homosexuality and its acceptance are contagious. For Gordon, seeing Collins come out was a relief and a spur to speak up. Having Collins’ pledge of support also helped. But so did the crowd’s reaction when Collins entered his first game after returning to the NBA. The fans stood and applauded. Gordon visualized getting that kind of reception. He wasn’t afraid anymore. He began to believe that he would be celebrated.</p>
<p>This is what religious conservatives have long feared: a mutually reinforcing cycle of open homosexuality and cultural affirmation. But what’s contagious <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.html">isn’t the homosexuality</a>. It’s the openness. In the interview, Gordon is asked when he first knew he was gay. “In middle school, I thought I was just going through a phase,” he says. But then “high school came, and my first year of college,” and the problem didn’t go away. Eventually, he began to think, “Maybe this is who you really are.”</p>
<p>Gordon was in middle school long before his predecessors came out. Collins wasn’t out. Sam wasn’t out. They didn’t make Gordon gay. They just made him feel safe about letting go of his secret. And they trashed the stereotype that gay men couldn’t be bruisers.</p>
<p>So, yes, open homosexuality is contagious. Just not in the way its repressors feared.</p>Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:42:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/09/jason_collins_michael_sam_derrick_gordon_is_open_homosexuality_contagious.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-09T18:42:00ZNews and PoliticsYes, Open Homosexuality Is Contagious. But Not the Way Its Repressors Feared.244140409001homosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/09/jason_collins_michael_sam_derrick_gordon_is_open_homosexuality_contagious.htmlfalsefalsefalseYes, open homosexuality is contagious. But not in the way conservatives feared. #DerrickGordonYes, Open Homosexuality Is Contagious. But Not the Way Its Repressors Feared.Photo by Grant Halverson/Getty ImagesDerrick Gordon at the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament, March 21, 2014.Is Brendan Eich Queer?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.html
<p>Ross Douthat has out-Slatepitched me.</p>
<p>Here I was, huddled with <a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/04/04/brandon-eich-and-hillary-clinton/">Andrew Sullivan</a>, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/375011/brendan-eich-resigns-reihan-salam">Reihan Salam</a>, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/">Conor Friedersdorf</a>, and a few others in a strange platoon of gay marriage supporters defending Brendan Eich. Our readers on the left think we’ve sold out to the right.</p>
<p>Now along comes Douthat. On behalf of his portion of the right—that is, thinkers—he says, quite graciously, <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/08/the-case-of-brendan-eich/">thanks, but no thanks</a>. Douthat recognizes what <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.html">I was trying to get at yesterday</a>: Eich’s ouster is in some ways a model for what religious conservatives would like to do in their own communities. They want the freedom to invoke their values in the appointment and removal of officers whose views offend them.</p>
<p>Liberals for Eich, meet Conservatives for Mozilla.</p>
<p>Here’s how Douthat presents their case:</p>
<blockquote>
If you want (as I do) a culture where Catholic schools and hospitals and charities are free to be Catholic, where evangelical-owned businesses don’t have to pay for sterilizations and the days-after pill, where churches and synagogues and mosques don’t have to worry about their tax-exempt status if they criticize “sexual modernity,” you also have to acknowledge the rights of non-religious institutions of all sorts to define their own missions in ways that might make an outspoken social conservative the wrong choice for an important position within their hierarchies.
</blockquote>
<p>Douthat offers this political deal:</p>
<blockquote>
In the name of pluralism, and the liberty of groups as well as individuals,&nbsp;I would gladly trade the career prospects of some religious conservatives in some situations—not exempting myself from that list—if doing so would protect my own church’s liberty (and the liberties of other, similarly-situated groups) to run its schools and hospitals and charities as it sees fit.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>Would you, Dear Liberal Reader, accept Douthat’s deal? Would you let conservatives run their own companies and organizations by their own rules, even if it means removing a gay CEO?</p>
<p>Douthat doesn’t think you’ll honor the deal. He thinks you’ll try to steamroll him, imposing your values on Hobby Lobby as well as Mozilla. So he draws a distinction:</p>
<blockquote>
Had Eich been, say, an outsider to Mozilla, a hotshot brought in to shake things up, and had he also been an outspoken critic of gay rights or a massive Koch-style donor to social conservative causes, it would be fair to say that his appointment was simply a tone-deaf mistake, a pointless affront to the political sensibilities of the community in which Mozilla lives and moves and hires.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But of course he was actually an insider, a man well known to that community, who (in addition to the minor feat of inventing Javascript) apparently had never had&nbsp;
<a href="http://recode.net/2014/04/03/mozilla-co-founder-brendan-eich-resigns-as-ceo-and-also-from-foundation-board/">any kind of personal insensitivity</a>&nbsp;or discrimination alleged against him. And his offense was not to be an outspoken social conservative, a major donor to Focus on the Family, a public paladin for the religious right … it was to have made a modest donation six years ago to a ballot initiative that won a majority at a time when most&nbsp;
<em>Democratic</em>&nbsp;politicians still defended the traditional definition of wedlock.
</blockquote>
<p>The purpose of this distinction is to explain why Eich’s removal was wrong, from Douthat’s point of view, while preserving the right of “an explicitly ideological institution”—or, apparently, an “evangelical-owned business”—to force out an officer who “went out of his way to publicly promote values noxious to his community.” I’m not certain whether this policy regarding “outspoken” dissent would make any openly gay executive fair game. But my bet is that Douthat would err on the side of employer discretion.</p>
<p>When Douthat predicts that liberals won’t accept that bargain, I’m pretty sure he’s right. But that doesn’t make his argument worthless. Even if you don’t buy Douthat’s conclusion, the substance of his description of the Eich case is worth considering.</p>
<p>Eich, as Douthat observes, was well-known to the community of Mozilla employees and software collaborators. No one has accused Eich of discrimination or personal insensitivity. <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html">Quite the opposite</a>. Today I was on a <a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201404080900">radio program on KQED</a>, an NPR affiliate in Northern California, and a Mozilla employee called in to reinforce that point. Yes, Eich gave money to the Proposition 8 campaign six years ago. He even <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/02/controversial-mozilla-ceo-made-donations-right-wing-candidates-brendan-eich">gave money to Pat Buchanan</a>, if you go back 22 years. (He also gave money to Ron Paul and God knows who else—people can be eclectic in their political contributions.) At the same time, as <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/mozillas-gay-marriage-litmus-test-violates-liberal-values/360156/">Friedersdorf notes</a>, Eich has promised to pursue Mozilla’s “anti-discrimination policies” (including sexual orientation), its “inclusive health benefits,” its “active commitment to equality,” and “working with LGBT communities and allies” to “make Mozilla supportive and welcoming.” These aren't new policies Eich had to swear allegiance to as an incoming CEO. He's been living them, as a central player in the Mozilla family, for years.<br /> </p>
<p>Is it possible that Eich defies our stereotypes about social conservatives? That you can write a check to a “traditional marriage” campaign (even one that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/04/04/brendan_eich_supported_prop_8_which_was_worse_than_you_remember.html">runs ads you didn’t write or approve</a>—a standard I don’t think we apply to ourselves) without showing any evidence, in decades of professional collaboration and management, of any bias against gay colleagues or couples?</p>
<p>I don’t know how this story will turn out. Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated gay and straight couples differently outside the context of defining marriage. But it’s striking that so far, despite all the uproar, nobody has.</p>
<p>Maybe what we’re seeing in Eich is the kind of complexity that liberals tend to accept when we talk about a person’s gender or sexual orientation. Maybe we ought to entertain the same complexity when we talk about a person’s morality and fair treatment of others.</p>Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:28:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-08T20:28:00ZNews and PoliticsCan You Donate to Prop 8 While Supporting Equality at Work? Or Is That Paradox Too Queer?244140408001gay marriagehomosexualityreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/08/brendan_eich_donated_to_prop_8_but_supports_workplace_equality_is_that_too.htmlfalsefalsefalseBrendan Eich donated to Prop 8 but supports workplace equality. Is that combination too queer to accept?Can You Donate to Prop 8 While Supporting Equality at Work? Or Is That Paradox Too Queer?Photo-illustration by Juliana Jimenez Jaramillo. Photo courtesy Darcy Padilla/Mozilla FoundationBrendan Eich donated to Proposition 8 but supports workplace equality. How can he do both?Brendan Eich and the New Moral Majorityhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.html
<p>Many self-styled liberals are celebrating Brendan Eich’s resignation as CEO of Mozilla. They say the company had every right to remove Eich for <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/04/brendan_eich_quits_mozilla_let_s_purge_all_the_antigay_donors_to_prop_8.html">supporting a 2008 referendum campaign against gay marriage</a>. It’s a matter of free enterprise and community standards, they argue.</p>
<p>Here’s <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/dear-andrew-sullivan-left_b_5088417.html">Michelangelo Signorile</a> in the <em>Huffington Post</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
None of this is about government censorship. It's about a company based in Northern California which has many progressive employees, and which has a lot of progressives and young people among the user base of its Firefox browser, realizing its CEO's world view was completely out of touch with the company's—and America's—values and vision for the future.
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/04/in-gay-rights-fights-bullies-love-to-play-the-victim.html">Tim Teeman</a> makes a similar case in the <em>Daily Beast</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Eich resigned presumably because he and his company figured the bad publicity they were getting from this, and the financial knock-on on their business, would be adversely affected by the revelation of his Prop 8 donation. … [E]ven a whiff of homophobia can be bad for business. … His prejudiced views are simply not those a company like Mozilla wants to be associated with.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p><a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-gay-marriage-20140404,0,7985087.story">Michael Hiltzik</a> of the <em>Los Angeles Times</em> agrees:</p>
<blockquote>
What about Eich's right to be CEO of Mozilla? He doesn't have that right … [H]is personal views were at odds with community standards. Gay rights, including the right to marriage, have indisputably moved into the mainstream of American society, even more so in the communities from which Mozilla draws its employees, business partners and customers. … The tension between Eich's personal views and corporate and community standards was going to be felt, whether subtly or overtly, in his dealings with employees, customers and business partners. We know this because it already had: protests&nbsp;
<a href="http://intangible.ca/2014/03/28/whats-happening-inside-mozilla/">roiled the staff</a>, the online dating service OKCupid posted a letter on its website encouraging clients to&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.cnet.com/news/okcupid-piles-on-mozilla-calls-for-new-ceo-to-resign/">use browsers other than Mozilla's Firefox</a>, and outside developers expressed dismay with Eich's elevation.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale.</p>
<p>The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination.</p>
<p>Twelve years ago, Larry Lane, a former manager at a carpet company, <a href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107shrg78032/html/CHRG-107shrg78032.htm">testified before Congress</a> about how he lost his job:</p>
<blockquote>
In the late summer/early fall of 1998, an employee, one of the sales representatives that I supervised, learned that I was gay and “outed” me—that is, told a number of other direct reports in my Region that I was gay—without my knowledge. … [Two of them] informed one of their coworkers that they didn't want to work for me … [They] told my supervisor that they could not trust me and said that I was secretive. … [M]y supervisor and his boss, the Vice President of Sales, placed me on probation and advised me that my “job was in jeopardy.” They explained that I was “hired to build the team in NY” and that based on feedback from “several of [my] people'” I was failing to get this “critical phase of [my] job done.” They … told me to return to New York and “reflect on what may be causing this dissension among my people.” … [Then they] fired me. When asked if this had anything to do with my performance or work ethic the Vice President of Sales stated, “Let's just say you don't fit” …
</blockquote>
<p><em>Dissension</em>. <em>Building the team</em>. <em>Don’t fit</em>. Sounds a lot like the case for removing Eich.</p>
<p>Two months ago Wayne Shimer of Des Moines, Iowa, sued his former employer after he was fired from his job at a convenience store. According to Shimer’s lawsuit, the store manager found out Shimer was gay and told him not to act &quot;feminine&quot; because it would “<a href="http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2014/02/23/west-des-moines-man-says-caseys-fired-him-because-hes-gay/5749395/">make customers and co-workers uncomfortable</a>.” Shimer’s attorney says the manager made clear that “she didn't want his 'feminine behavior' to scare off the customers, and she was concerned that it may have some impact on some of the employees.”</p>
<p><em>Scare off customers</em>. <em>Make co-workers uncomfortable</em>. Does that ring a bell?</p>
<p>In early February college football player Michael Sam became the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.html">first NFL draft prospect</a> to <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/michael_sam_s_father_shows_gay_men_can_have_better_family_values_than_straight.html">affirm his homosexuality</a>. Some NFL officials welcomed Sam’s statement, but others said it would hurt his draft prospects. “<a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140209/michael-sam-draft-stock/">It'd chemically imbalance an NFL locker room and meeting room</a>,” a player personnel assistant told <em>Sports Illustrated</em>. A general manager predicted that Sam <a href="http://mmqb.si.com/2014/02/09/michael-sam-monday-morning-quarterback/">wouldn’t be drafted at all</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The question you will ask yourself, knowing your team, is, “How will drafting him affect your locker room?” And I am sorry to say where we are at this point in time, I think it’s going to affect most locker rooms. A lot of guys will be uncomfortable.
</blockquote>
<p>The day before Sam came out, he was projected as the 90<sup>th</sup> pick on the CBS Sports draft board. By the next day, he was <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/nfl-draft-scout/24438468/examining-why-michael-sams-nfl-draft-stock-is-falling">20 picks lower</a>. Now he’s <a href="http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/prospectrankings/2014/DE">227<sup>th</sup></a>. Some of the drop has to do with doubts about his talent. But a lot of it has to do with what GMs <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20140209/michael-sam-draft-stock/">describe</a> as “the potential distraction of his presence—both in the media and the locker room.”</p>
<p><em>Distraction</em>. <em>Uncomfortable</em>. It’s the same old story.</p>
<p>Losing your job for being gay is different from losing your job for opposing gay marriage. Unlike homosexuality, opposition to same-sex marriage is a choice, and it directly limits the rights of other people. But the rationales for getting rid of Eich bear a disturbing resemblance to the rationales for getting rid of gay managers and employees. <em>He caused dissension. He made colleagues uncomfortable. He scared off customers. He created a distraction. He didn’t fit.</em></p>
<p>It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s liberals. Or, rather, it’s people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.</p>Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:04:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-07T13:04:00ZNews and PoliticsThe Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing Gays244140407001free speechhomosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/07/brendan_eich_homophobia_and_corporate_values_the_left_is_the_new_moral_majority.htmlfalsefalsefalseCommunity standards? Employee morale? The excuses for purging Brendan Eich sound like the old excuses for firing gay people.The Excuses for Purging Brendan Eich Are the Old Excuses for Firing GaysPhoto courtesy Darcy Padilla/Mozilla Foundation&quot;Community standards&quot; used to be invoked against gay employees. Now they're invoked against Brendan Eich.Is the Campaign Against “Judaization” Anti-Semitic?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/02/the_arab_league_says_israel_is_judaizing_jerusalem_is_that_anti_semitic.html
<p>The Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have blown up again. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, unhappy with Israel’s failure to release Palestinian prisoners as part of the negotiations, has <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/03/world/middleeast/middle-east-peace-talks.html">applied for membership in international agencies</a>, circumventing the U.S. and Israel. Secretary of State John Kerry has responded by <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/group-israel-moving-forward-settlement-homes">canceling his trip</a> to the Middle East. Meanwhile, Israel is soliciting bids from contractors for <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Over-700-housing-tenders-approved-for-Gilo-347199">more settlement construction</a> in East Jerusalem.</p>
<p>The peace process has blown up many times before. Each time, the U.S. backs up and tries to lower expectations, announcing a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2002/04/tenet_to_mitchell_to_chance.html">process that will lead to a process that will lead to a process</a> that will lead to a deal. But the post-blowup spin game has changed. Abbas has turned to the United Nations, using his support among the member states to win acknowledgment of Palestinian statehood. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has played the anti-Semitism card, attributing criticisms of Israel to hatred of Jews.</p>
<p>A few years ago, Netanyahu began to demand that the Palestinians recognize not just Israel, but Israel’s identity as a “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/09/occupation_obfuscation.html">Jewish state</a>.” Last year, addressing the U.N., he insisted that “<a href="http://www.pmo.gov.il/MediaCenter/Speeches/Documents/UN011013.doc">the Palestinians must finally recognize the Jewish state</a>.” A month ago, in a <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.577920">speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee</a>, Netanyahu alleged that</p>
<blockquote>
attempts to boycott, divest and sanction Israel, the most threatened democracy on Earth, are simply the latest chapter in the long and dark history of anti-Semitism. Those who wear the BDS label should be treated exactly as we treat any anti-Semite or bigot.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>Netanyahu’s strategy—portraying objections to Israeli policy as attacks on Judaism—creates trouble for a term commonly used by critics of Israel. The term is “Judaization.” This term has a long history in Arab rhetoric. <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/1,7340,L-3808546,00.html">Egypt</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3406747,00.html">Jordan</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4195762,00.html">Qatar</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3608675,00.html">Syria</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3472537,00.html">Turkey</a>, the <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3605041,00.html">Palestinian Authority</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3220875,00.html">Hamas</a>, and <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194971,00.html">Israeli Arabs</a> have all accused Israel of trying to “Judaize” territories and cities, particularly Jerusalem. The term has been applied not just to <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4378030,00.html">settlements</a>, <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3689316,00.html">demolitions</a>, and <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Mugrabi-Bridge-closure-is-religious-war">deportations</a>, but also to archaeological <a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3813177,00.html">excavations</a>.</p>
<p>Most Arab governments have used the word in a defensive context, protesting what they see as illegal, state-backed invasion of areas previously occupied by non-Jews. Peace activists critical of the Netanyahu government have used “Judaization” in the same breath as <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Officials-Israel-ready-for-Global-March-to-Jlem">“apartheid” and “ethnic cleansing.”</a> <em>Haaretz</em>, an Israeli newspaper, has editorialized against the government’s policy of “<a href="http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/judaization-is-racism.premium-1.494990">Judaizing the Galilee</a>,” which the paper condemns as <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.561201">racist</a>.</p>
<p>There’s a real basis for these worries. Right-wing leaders in Israel have openly urged citizens to “<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3752578,00.html">Judaize</a>” parts of the country. Two years ago a rabbi called on Israel to “<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4230315,00.html">reclaim Jerusalem and re-Judaize it</a>.” Another rabbi, having been accused of racial incitement for prohibiting the rental of apartments to non-Jews, <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Braverman-calls-to-oust-Safed-rabbi-for-racial-incitement">cited the government’s policy</a> of “Judaizing the Galilee.” An article in <em>Haaretz</em> <a href="http://www.haaretz.com/news/features/word-of-the-day/.premium-1.540496">reports</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Beginning with the first Zionist immigrants and continuing in into the present day,&nbsp;
<em>yihud</em>&nbsp;[yi-HOOD], Judaization, is the term used to describe Israel’s official spatial policy. … Yihud has been an official policy of successive Israeli governments, which cite the need to ensure the country’s territorial integrity and also to redress the disparity in its population distribution … Moreover, some see Judaization as the earthly tool of achieving a divine promise—claiming the Land of Israel in its entirety for the People of Israel.
</blockquote>
<p>But there’s also a real basis to fear anti-Semitism behind allegations of “Judaization.” Four years ago a rally in Egypt to promote the “battle against Jerusalem's Judaization” included rants against the &quot;treacherous Jews” and affirmations that &quot;<a href="http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4153207,00.html">one day we shall kill all the Jews</a>.” Israelis <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Features/Blaming-el-Yahud">haven’t forgotten</a> those threats. A year and a half ago, Israel’s U.N. ambassador charged that Abbas, in accusing Israel of trying to “Judaize Jerusalem,” was attempting to “<a href="http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/PressRoom/2012/Pages/UNGA-debate-on-Palestinian-status-29-Nov-2012.aspx">erase Jewish history</a>.”</p>
<p>Last week, at a meeting in Kuwait, the League of Arab States <a href="http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2014/03/26/arab-league-rejects-israel-jewish-homeland/ZoF7CtzFLHU1e4OLGl7WfM/story.html">repeated its denunciations</a> of Israeli policy. The league’s <a href="http://www.lasportal.org/wps/wcm/connect/106201804368036f9a90df45b0f8f28c/%D8%A7%D8%B9%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D9%88%D9%8A%D8%AA+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D9%87%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%8A.pdf?MOD=AJPERES">statement</a>—translated in parts by <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s Anna Newby and by Yuval Orr, a freelance writer and translator&nbsp;in Israel—defended “Palestinian territory,” “Palestinian unity,” and “the Palestinian people.” It condemned “Israeli settlements” and “Israeli occupation.” But it also lapsed into the language of Jews versus non-Jews. The League expressed not just its “categorical refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” but also its repudiation of “the ongoing settlement and Judaization of Jerusalem, the assault against Muslim and Christian holy sites, and the modification of the city's demographic and geographic composition.” The statement thanked the king of Morocco for his efforts to preserve the city’s “Arab and Islamic character.”</p>
<p>In Arab countries, criticisms of Jewish claims and Judaization are wildly popular. In Israel, these criticisms convey hostility, but the threat they pose is tempered by the knowledge that Jews are the majority. In the U.S., however, the resonance is very different. Here, Jews have always been a minority, and <a href="http://www.slate.com/search.html#search=muslim%20saletan">Muslims are widely seen as a terrorist threat</a>. Proclamations against Judaization, no matter what their basis in settlement or demolition activity, sound grimly anti-Semitic.</p>
<p>That’s why Netanyahu accuses his critics of anti-Jewish bigotry when he comes to the U.S.—and why Palestinian and Arab leaders might want to change their language.</p>Wed, 02 Apr 2014 19:34:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/02/the_arab_league_says_israel_is_judaizing_jerusalem_is_that_anti_semitic.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-02T19:34:00ZNews and PoliticsThe Arab League Condemns Israel for “Judaizing” Jerusalem. Is That Anti-Semitic?244140402001israeljewsWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/02/the_arab_league_says_israel_is_judaizing_jerusalem_is_that_anti_semitic.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe Arab League says Israel is “Judaizing” Jerusalem. Is that anti-Semitic?The Arab League Condemns Israel for “Judaizing” Jerusalem. Is That Anti-Semitic?Photo by Ahmad Gharabli/AFP/Getty ImagesJewish settlers wave their national flag outside a house belonging to a Palestinian family after they recently occupied it, in East Jerusalem, on July 8, 2011.Does Sex Surgery Defy God’s Will?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/01/a_sex_reassignment_surgeon_declares_i_ve_decided_to_defy_god_s_will.html
<p>When a person is born with a male body but a female psyche, is his body a divine gift to be respected? Or is her body a birth defect, an error by her creator? Does sex reassignment surgery overturn God's will?<br /> </p>
<p>Kim Seok-Kwun, a doctor who pioneered gender surgery in South Korea, struggles with these questions in an <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/skorea-sex-change-doc-i-correct-gods-mistakes">interview with the Associated Press</a>. The reporter, Hyung-Jin Kim, explains the cultural context: “A strong bias against sexual minorities persists in South Korea, the result of lingering Confucian beliefs that children should never damage the bodies they received from their parents.” Meanwhile, “In 2012, vehement protests by conservative activists and Christian groups forced a TV channel to scrap a talk show program featuring transgender people.”</p>
<p>The religious resistance has put enormous pressure on Dr. Kim. When he began doing these operations three decades ago, “Sometimes parents showed up just before surgeries, furious and threatening to disown their children.” Kim’s pastor objected to his work, and “friends and fellow doctors joked that he was going to hell if he didn't stop.”</p>
<p>According to the story, Kim remains a devout Protestant. But his reflections on his work and what it signifies about creation are startling:</p>
<blockquote>
I've decided to defy God's will. At first, I agonized over whether I should do these operations because I wondered if I was defying God. I was overcome with a sense of shame. But my patients desperately wanted these surgeries. Without them, they'd kill themselves.
</blockquote>
<p>He continues:</p>
<blockquote>
Some people are born without genitals or with cleft lips or with no ears or with their fingers stuck together. Why does God create people like this? Aren't these God's mistakes? And isn't a mismatched sexual identity a mistake, too?
</blockquote>
<p>In the article, the Rev. Hong Jae Chul, president of the Christian Council of Korea, condemns Kim’s remarks. He calls Kim’s work &quot;a blasphemy against God.”</p>
<p>I doubt there’s any love lost between the doctor and the minister. But their disagreement is less jarring than what they agree on. Both of them seem to think that a mismatch between body and sexual identity is God’s doing, and that any attempt to alter that body is a rejection of God’s will.</p>
<p>Their quarrel reminds me of an old joke, which I found <a href="http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html">reprinted in <em>The Epistle</em></a>, a website for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Christians. A man engulfed by a storm refuses help from neighbors and rescue workers who offer to evacuate him by car, canoe, motorboat, and then helicopter. Each time, he insists, “God will save me.” Eventually, the man drowns in the flood. When he rebukes God for failing to help him, God points out, “I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter.”</p>
<p>Maybe that’s a better way to understand Dr. Kim’s work. He’s not defying God’s will. He’s the help God sent.</p>Tue, 01 Apr 2014 17:01:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/01/a_sex_reassignment_surgeon_declares_i_ve_decided_to_defy_god_s_will.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-04-01T17:01:00ZNews and PoliticsSex Reassignment Surgeon: “I've Decided to Defy God’s Will”244140401001transgenderWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/04/01/a_sex_reassignment_surgeon_declares_i_ve_decided_to_defy_god_s_will.htmlfalsefalsefalseA sex-reassignment surgeon declares: “I've decided to defy God's will.”Sex Reassignment Surgeon: “I've Decided to Defy God’s Will”Photo by China Photos/Getty ImagesHarisu, a South Korean singer and former patient of sex reassignment surgeon Kim Seok-Kwun.Why Pro-Lifers Killhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/31/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_louisiana_texas_and_oklahoma_conceal.html
<p>The death-penalty drug fight has engulfed a third state. First it was <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/21/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_does_texas_protect_pharmacies_that_sell.html">Texas</a>. Then <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/27/pro_life_hypocrisy_why_do_states_that_restrict_abortion_conceal_their_methods.html">Oklahoma</a>. Now Louisiana.</p>
<p>On Thursday a panel of federal judges refused Louisiana’s request to conceal its execution drug formula and drug supplier from inmates the state was preparing to kill. On Friday night the Louisiana Department of Corrections gave in. It will accept the court’s ruling.</p>
<p>The further this fight spreads, the clearer the pattern becomes: States that practice capital punishment, and fight to hide the identities of their lethal drugs and suppliers, are the same states that restrict abortion in the name of life.</p>
<p>If you’re late tuning into this topic, here’s a quick overview, courtesy of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/29/us-usa-execution-louisiana-idUSBREA2R1X420140329">Reuters</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Several states have been scrambling to find new suppliers and chemical combinations after drug makers, mostly in Europe, imposed sales bans because they objected to having medications made for other purposes being used in lethal injections.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The states said they have looked to alter the mix of drugs used for lethal injections and keep the suppliers' identities secret. They have also turned to lightly regulated compounding pharmacies. Those pharmacies can mix drugs, often to meet needs not available in prescription medication, the pharmacy compounding accreditation board said.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But lawyers for death row inmates have argued that keeping information secret was a violation of due process protections in the U.S. Constitution. They also argued that drugs from compounding pharmacies can lack purity and potency and cause undue suffering, in violation of the Constitution.
</blockquote>
<p>The three states at the center of this battle (Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana), along with two others that suppress information about their execution methods and suppliers (<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-texas-finds-new-execution-drug-supply">Arkansas and Missouri</a>), are among the most “pro-life” in the country. <a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/50state2005/50StateAbortion0805SortedbyProLife.htm">All five states scored among the top 20</a> in the most recent apples-to-apples comparison of state polling data, released in 2005 by SurveyUSA. (States were ranked in order of the percentage of respondents who said they were pro-life when asked, “<a href="http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollTrack.aspx?g=66124413-0391-426b-9c3d-21b592447c98">On abortion, are you pro-life? Or pro-choice?</a>”) Four of these five states are clustered in the seven-state “South Central” region, which, in an <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/29/widening-regional-divide-over-abortion-laws/">analysis of 2012–2013 survey data</a> by the Pew Research Center, significantly outscored all other regions in the percentage of respondents who said abortion should be illegal. Second prize went to the Midwest, which included Missouri. In fact, Pew found that in the last two decades, the South Central and Midwest regions have become even more opposed to legal abortion than they already were.</p>
<p>If you compare <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-and-without-death-penalty">states that have the death penalty</a> with <a href="https://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_OAL.pdf">states that restrict abortion</a>, you’ll see the same pattern. Of the 33 states that restrict public funding of abortion, 27 permit capital punishment. Of the 17 states that don’t restrict abortion funding, 12 don’t permit capital punishment. And of the <a href="http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-list-2013">39 executions carried out last year</a>, 38 occurred in states that have banned “partial-birth” or second-trimester abortions.</p>
<p>Why do “pro-life” states do so much of the death-row killing? Many liberals think it’s because pro-lifers don’t care about life after it’s born. That’s a good sound bite, but it distorts the truth. The real reason is that the “pro-life” coalition is an alliance of at least two different constituencies. One is what I’d call authentic pro-lifers—people who believe that all human life is sacred, including the lives of murderers. The Catholic Church is the principal exponent of this idea.</p>
<p>Another part of the “pro-life” coalition is what I’d call moral conservatives. For these people, the ultimate value isn’t life. It’s right and wrong. They believe in protecting fetal life not just because it’s life, but because it’s innocent. From this point of view, if you commit a murder, you lose your innocence. You deserve to be punished. In some cases, you deserve to die.</p>
<p>A decade ago, when I was looking for a place to study the intersection of abortion and death-penalty politics, Louisiana was the most compelling story. It was the most aggressive killer of felons, having mandated the death penalty <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=T9CYQmm7bzEC&amp;lpg=PA169&amp;dq=saletan%20louisiana%20%22death%20penalty%22%20aggravated%20rape&amp;pg=PA169#v=onepage&amp;q=saletan%20louisiana%20%22death%20penalty%22%20aggravated%20rape&amp;f=false">even for nonlethal aggravated rape</a>. It was also, as measured by polls, the most anti-abortion state in the country. These two cultures coexisted—indeed, for the most part, they were one culture—because the dominant constituency in Louisiana didn’t believe in the sanctity of life. It believed in punishment. That’s why the most effective argument against abortion bans in Louisiana wasn’t that women should have a right to choose, but that exceptions should be made for rape or incest. Those scenarios conjured up images of innocent women and criminal men. They confounded moral conservatives by <a href="http://www.bearingright.com">turning abortion rights into an issue of crime and self-defense</a>.</p>
<p>It’s perfectly natural, then, to hear Louisiana’s governor, Bobby Jindal, preach against abortion while trying to <a href="http://www.nola.com/timespic/stories/index.ssf?/base//library-153/121834703716590.xml">reinstate the death penalty for rape</a>. And it’s just as fitting to see Louisiana join Texas and Oklahoma on the list of states fighting to restrict abortion while practicing capital punishment and protecting its drug suppliers. For the politicians who rule these states, the fight, ultimately, isn’t about life. It’s about sin.</p>Mon, 31 Mar 2014 17:22:19 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/31/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_louisiana_texas_and_oklahoma_conceal.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-31T17:22:19ZNews and PoliticsLouisiana, Texas, Oklahoma: Why Are “Pro-Life” States Defending the Death Penalty?244140331001abortiondeath penaltyWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/31/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_louisiana_texas_and_oklahoma_conceal.htmlfalsefalsefalseLouisiana joins Texas and Oklahoma in fighting to ban abortion while concealing suppliers of execution drugs.Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma: Why Are “Pro-Life” States Defending the Death Penalty?Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty ImagesGov. Bobby Jindal, R-La., speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on March 6, 2014, wants to outlaw abortion but legalize the death penalty for rape.The Pro-Life Execution Problemhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/27/pro_life_hypocrisy_why_do_states_that_restrict_abortion_conceal_their_methods.html
<p>The debate over concealment of state-sanctioned killing has moved on to another “pro-life” state.</p>
<p>Last week, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/21/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_does_texas_protect_pharmacies_that_sell.html">the venue was Texas</a>. There, the state Department of Criminal Justice <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-texas-finds-new-execution-drug-supply">refused a request from the Associated Press</a>&nbsp;to disclose the pharmacy that supplied the state with drugs for lethal injections.</p>
<p>Now the controversy has spread to Oklahoma. Two men slated to die have <a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&amp;viewtype=caseGeneral&amp;casemasterID=3095085&amp;db=Oklahoma">sued the state</a> to find out where the drugs for their executions are coming from. They say they’re entitled to know because Oklahoma and other states, facing difficulty in obtaining lethal drugs, have been <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/oklahoma-adds-options-execution-protocol">improvising their formulas</a> and turning to pharmacies that compound the chemicals on request. This coincides with two recent executions in which one inmate said, &quot;<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/okla-man-says-he-can-feel-body-burning-during-execution/">I feel my whole body burning</a>,” and another “<a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/oklahoma-adds-options-execution-protocol">made gasp-like sounds for several minutes</a>.”</p>
<p>Nobody has proved a connection between these incidents and the improvised drugs. And nobody can, as long as the states conceal their suppliers.</p>
<p>In Texas, the Criminal Justice Department has to explain why this information is exempt from the state’s open records law. That question will be addressed in a <a href="http://www.burlesonstar.net/texasnews/ci_25425870">court hearing today</a>. But in Oklahoma, the state’s suppliers are kept secret by law. Rule <a href="http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os22.rtf">22-1015 (B)</a> of Oklahoma’s code of statutes declares:</p>
<blockquote>
The identity of all persons who participate in or administer the execution process and persons who supply the drugs, medical supplies or medical equipment for the execution shall be confidential and shall not be subject to discovery in any civil or criminal proceedings.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s incredibly airtight. Never mind stonewalling the press. Even if you’re the lawyer for a person scheduled to die, you’re prohibited from finding out who’s cooking up his injection.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago, after attorneys for two Oklahoma inmates challenged this rule, the Department of Corrections dismissed their objection. “Regardless of what Plaintiffs discover about the protocol, their death sentence will not change,” the department argued in its reply brief. (You can download the brief <a href="http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/getimage.tif?submitted=true&amp;casemasterid=3095085&amp;db=OKLAHOMA&amp;barcode=1024451448">here</a>, but only as a huge picture file.) “The protocol challenges merely determine whether the sentence will be carried out in a different manner.” Furthermore, the brief added, “The most that Plaintiffs can muster is that executions ‘may’ result in cruel and unusual punishment. This is a baseless speculation without any proof … ”</p>
<p>That’s a remarkably casual attitude, coming from a state that <a href="http://www.ok.gov/health/Data_and_Statistics/Center_For_Health_Statistics/Health_Care_Information/Induced_Termination_of_Pregnancy/">works zealously</a> to identify abortion providers, publicize their methods, and regulate the risks and alleviation of pain.</p>
<p>Rule 63-1-738.2 of the Oklahoma code (you can find the <a href="http://www.ok.gov/health2/documents/HCI_ITOP_OkAbortionStatutes03012012.pdf">complete text</a> of the state’s abortion laws <a href="http://www.ok.gov/health/Data_and_Statistics/Center_For_Health_Statistics/Health_Care_Information/Induced_Termination_of_Pregnancy/">here</a>) stipulates that any woman who receives an abortion must first be told “the name of the physician who will perform the abortion.” Rule 63-1-738.9 says that if the fetus is at least 20 weeks past fertilization, the doctor must “inform the female if an anesthetic or analgesic would eliminate or alleviate organic pain to the unborn child caused by the particular method of abortion.” Rule 63-1-745.6 requires the doctor to report to the state “the method used for the abortion.” Rule 63-1-738m adds that</p>
<blockquote>
each year, the Department shall issue, on its stable Internet website, a public Annual Abortion Report … [showing] the number of abortions performed by each reported method … the number of cases in which anesthesia was administered to the mother and the number of each type of anesthesia; the number of cases in which anesthesia was administered to the unborn child, and the number of each type of anesthesia and of each method of administration … the number of abortions performed without surgery but rather as the result of the administration of chemicals … [and] the number of abortions performed for each hospital at which the abortionist had hospital privileges …
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a lot of information. It’s not just being disclosed on request. It’s being posted online, by law, for everyone to see. Even the patient’s identity isn’t fully protected. Under Rule 63-1-738.16, courts are authorized to decide, case by case, “whether the anonymity of any female upon whom an abortion has been performed or attempted shall be preserved from public disclosure.” Suppressing that information is permitted only when “no reasonable, less restrictive alternative exists.”</p>
<p>In short, Oklahoma thinks it’s more important to protect the identity of a company that supplies execution drugs than to protect the identity of a woman who gets an abortion.</p>
<p>Why? Because Oklahoma worries that pro-lifers—the ones who believe life is sacred even <em>after</em> it’s born—will target the drug suppliers. In its coverage of the death-penalty litigation, the <em>Oklahoman</em> <a href="http://newsok.com/oklahoma-judge-finds-aspect-of-state-execution-law-unconstitutional/article/3947226">reported yesterday</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Assistant Attorney General John Hadden argued much of the concern over the drugs is speculation. He said the sources need to be kept secret to protect their safety. Hadden pointed to threats of violence made to compounding pharmacies by anti-death penalty activists. “We’re talking about people who are willing to send in bomb threats to compounding pharmacies.”
</blockquote>
<p>That’s the same argument we heard in Texas. States that have never worried much about harassment of abortion clinics suddenly become concerned when the targets are pharmacies that sell execution drugs.</p>
<p>The <a href="http://www.oklahomacounty.org/Judges/page/Judge-Patricia-G-Parrish.aspx">judge in Oklahoma</a> didn’t buy this argument. “The secrecy statute is a violation of due process because access to the courts has been denied,&quot; she <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/oklahoma-judge-tosses-state-execution-law">ruled</a>. The state is appealing her decision, but either way, the debate won’t end here. The AP says at least two other states, Arkansas and Missouri, also suppress information about how they do their executions.</p>
<p>That’s four states, all of them hostile to abortion. They call themselves pro-life. Are they?</p>Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:02:37 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/27/pro_life_hypocrisy_why_do_states_that_restrict_abortion_conceal_their_methods.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-27T15:02:37ZNews and PoliticsWhy Do States That Target Abortion Clinics Conceal Execution Drug Suppliers?244140327001death penaltyabortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/27/pro_life_hypocrisy_why_do_states_that_restrict_abortion_conceal_their_methods.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy does Oklahoma protect the identity of its execution drug suppliers but not the identities of women who get abortions?Why Do States That Target Abortion Clinics Conceal Execution Drug Suppliers?Photo by Dani Pozo/AFP/Getty ImagesProtesters demonstrate against the death penalty in Madrid, Spain, on June 15, 2013.Why Can’t Big Brother Find MH370?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/25/mh370_and_nsa_surveillance_governments_can_collect_data_but_they_can_t_keep.html
<p>On one side of the Earth, Americans are afraid that the U.S. government is watching everything they say. On the other side of the Earth, millions of people, scouring hundreds of millions of satellite images, have failed to locate the wreckage of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370.</p>
<p>These two stories are related. The search for MH370 shows that analyzing surveillance data is much harder than collecting it. That’s what keeps the National Security Agency from reading your email or listening to your calls. Its people simply don’t have the time.</p>
<p>A few days ago, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell asked former President Jimmy Carter about the NSA controversy. Carter <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-march-23-2014-n59966">replied</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
I have felt that my own communications are probably monitored. And when I want to communicate with a foreign leader privately, I type or write a letter myself, put it in the post office, and mail it. … Because I believe if I send an email, it will be monitored.
</blockquote>
<p>This fear of being personally spied upon is pervasive. In polls, 35 to 40 percent of Americans have said they’re concerned that the government is “collecting your phone call records” or “<a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm">monitoring your internet activities</a>.” Majorities have said that the NSA’s programs violate privacy and go too far. Their anxiety, stoked by allegations that the government is “placing millions of people under permanent surveillance,” has forced the Obama administration to agree—in a plan reported last night by the <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/us/obama-to-seek-nsa-curb-on-call-data.html">New York Times</a></em>—to shut down the NSA’s collection of phone call records.</p>
<p>It’s hard to square this fear with the surveillance logjam that’s been crippling the search for MH370. For the last two weeks, satellites associated with Australia, China, France, and the U.S. have captured images hinting at possible locations of the plane’s debris.&nbsp; But in each case, the images haven’t been released until days after they were taken, by which time the debris—whatever it was—could no longer be found.</p>
<p>On March 13, when the search was focused near Malaysia, the <em>Malaysian Insider</em> noted a four-day gap between the capture and release of images from a Chinese satellite. At that point China said that it had 10 satellites searching for the plane and that they had covered 120,000 square kilometers, “<a href="http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/analysts-question-china-in-making-satellite-images-public">an area almost the size of Greece</a>.” An Australian space analyst explained the delay this way:</p>
<blockquote>
There's a lot of time you go through between the time you get the images and the time you release them. The satellite has to get into position, take the photo, then relay it to a ground station, then it has to be analyzed. And keep in mind, the analysts on the ground are probably looking through a tremendous amount of data.
</blockquote>
<p>A week later, when the search had moved to the Indian Ocean, Reuters reported <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/21/malaysia-airplane-digitalglobe-idUSL3N0MI0K720140321">the same problem</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Delays in identifying satellite images that may show debris of a missing Malaysian plane in the southern Indian Ocean were due to the vast amounts of data that needed to be analyzed, Australian authorities and the U.S. company that collected the images said. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
DigitalGlobe Inc, a Colorado-based company that collects satellite imagery for the U.S. government and other countries as well as private companies, confirmed it had collected the images on March 16. … [T]he data was analysed by Australia's Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
DigitalGlobe spokesman Turner Brinton declined to comment on whether the debris was spotted by the company's own analysts, government analysts or Internet users participating in a &quot;crowdsourcing&quot; effort launched by the company to help locate the plane. Brinton said more than 6.3 million users were involved in the effort, looking at more than 485 million &quot;map views,&quot; which accounted for more than 120,000 sq km of imagery. More than 6.7 million features had been tagged by the crowd, he said. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Brinton said the company's five high-resolution satellites capture more than 3 million square km of earth imagery each day. &quot;This volume of imagery is far too vast to search through in real time without an idea of where to look,&quot; Brinton said. &quot;Given the extraordinary size of the current search area, the lengthy duration of the analysis effort was to be expected.” …
</blockquote>
<p>This is the reality of electronic surveillance. Our ability to collect data vastly outstrips, in speed and volume, our ability to digest it. Even with 6 million people helping a dozen governments in an intense, collective hunt, we can’t keep up with the millions upon millions of satellite images.</p>
<p>That’s why it’s vanishingly unlikely that among the roughly 10 billion phone records the NSA collects every day <a href="http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2006-05-16-nsa-privacy_x.htm">in the U.S.</a> and <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nsa-tracking-cellphone-locations-worldwide-snowden-documents-show/2013/12/04/5492873a-5cf2-11e3-bc56-c6ca94801fac_story.html">overseas</a>, government agents are looking at yours. The same goes for your email. There’s too much data and too few people to analyze it. You’re just not that important, even if you used to be president.</p>Tue, 25 Mar 2014 13:28:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/25/mh370_and_nsa_surveillance_governments_can_collect_data_but_they_can_t_keep.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-25T13:28:00ZNews and PoliticsIf Big Brother Is Watching You, Why Can’t He Find MH370?244140325001nsanational security agencysurveillancemalaysia flight 370William SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/25/mh370_and_nsa_surveillance_governments_can_collect_data_but_they_can_t_keep.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf Big Brother Is Watching You, Why Can’t He Find Flight MH370? Governments can collect data, but they can’t keep up with it.If Big Brother Is Watching You, Why Can’t He Find MH370?Photo by Paul Kane/Getty ImagesA satellite link technician at his console in Australia searches for flight MH370 on March 22, 2014.Is Texas Covering Up After-Birth Abortions?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/21/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_does_texas_protect_pharmacies_that_sell.html
<p>Texas is a pro-life state. If you sell drugs that kill unborn babies—or, to be a bit more technical, if you offer nonsurgical abortions using an <a href="http://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/postmarketdrugsafetyinformationforpatientsandproviders/ucm111323.htm">FDA-approved combination of mifepristone and misoprostol</a>—the state will demand lots of information from you. It will also provide information about you to the public. Citizens are entitled to know what you do.</p>
<p>If, however, you sell drugs to the state for its favorite pro-life activity—killing <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html">fully born people</a> who have murdered others—the state will protect you. It will hide your complicity, even under direct questioning.</p>
<p>Texas law is full of rules for abortion clinics. <a href="http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&amp;app=9&amp;p_dir=&amp;p_rloc=&amp;p_tloc=&amp;p_ploc=&amp;pg=1&amp;p_tac=&amp;ti=25&amp;pt=1&amp;ch=139&amp;rl=4">Section 139.4</a> of the state health and safety code requires clinics to report to the state each “patient's year of birth, race, marital status,” “the probable post-fertilization age of the unborn child,” “the date, if known, of the patient's last menstrual cycle,” “the number of previous induced abortions of the patient,” and the “method used to dispose of fetal tissue and remains.” <a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.171.htm">Section 171.063</a> requires the doctor to furnish</p>
<blockquote>
a telephone number by which the pregnant woman may reach the physician, or other health care personnel employed by the physician or by the facility at which the abortion was performed or induced with access to the woman's relevant medical records, 24 hours a day to request assistance for any complications that arise …
</blockquote>
<p>Last year the legislature extended the phone number requirement to anyone who “<a href="http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=832&amp;Bill=HB2">gives, sells, dispenses, administers, provides, or prescribes an abortion-inducing drug</a>.”</p>
<p>The state keeps individual medical records private. But it releases other information. Under <a href="http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/htm/HS.245.htm">section 245.005</a>, “Information regarding the licensing status of an abortion facility is an open record … and shall be made available by the department on request.” Under <a href="http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&amp;app=9&amp;p_dir=&amp;p_rloc=&amp;p_tloc=&amp;p_ploc=&amp;pg=1&amp;p_tac=&amp;ti=25&amp;pt=1&amp;ch=139&amp;rl=6">section 139.6</a>, the state must make “available to the public … the date of the last inspection of the facility,” and it must “maintain a toll-free telephone number that a person may call” to get information about licensing, inspections, and incidents.</p>
<p>Pro-lifers <a href="http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/911-redactions-fail-to-hide-hemorrhage-as-complication-to-carhart-late-term-abortion/">use</a> these <a href="http://www.cafemom.com/group/1021/forums/read/17897628/Abortion_Provider_Spotlight_Dr_Curtis_Boyd">open-records laws</a> a <a href="http://onenewsnow.com/pro-life/2013/09/25/st-louis-refuses-to-release-911-call-from-abortion-clinic">lot</a>. Several years ago the Houston Coalition for Life got <a href="http://www.houstoncoalition.com/index.cfm?load=page&amp;page=192">letters from a local Planned Parenthood attorney</a> through an open-records request. Last year, when Texas was considering the bill that imposed new information requirements on providers of abortion-inducing drugs, a leading pro-life activist exulted that the bill’s doctor-availability rules would shut down a clinic’s ability to offer those drugs. She also discussed information she had gathered about “<a href="http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2414/no_more_gosnells.aspx">abortion clinics across the state</a>” through the open-records laws.</p>
<p>You’d think a state with such extensive reporting rules for first-trimester abortions—and <a href="http://info.sos.state.tx.us/pls/pub/readtac$ext.TacPage?sl=R&amp;app=9&amp;p_dir=&amp;p_rloc=&amp;p_tloc=&amp;p_ploc=&amp;pg=1&amp;p_tac=&amp;ti=25&amp;pt=1&amp;ch=139&amp;rl=5">even more extensive reporting rules for third-trimester abortions</a>—would be curious, or at least candid, about the taking of human life in, say, the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/25/_after_birth_abortion_how_right_wing_web_sites_turned_my_old_article_into.html">120<sup>th</sup> or 160<sup>th</sup> trimester</a>, when the targeted person is 30 or 40 years old. But you’d be wrong. According to the Associated Press, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice is <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/apnewsbreak-texas-finds-new-execution-drug-supply">refusing to disclose the pharmacy</a> from which it gets drugs for lethal injections.</p>
<p>Texas has executed more than 500 people since 1982. Last year it killed 16. So far this year, it has killed three more. Five other executions are already on the calendar. To complete them, the state needs pentobarbital or other sedatives. But drugmakers don’t like to be associated with death. Many of them have refused to sell potentially lethal drugs to prison authorities in states that practice capital punishment. So Texas has turned to local pharmacies for its supply.</p>
<p>This week the state confirmed that it had received a new shipment of pentobarbital. When the AP asked who had supplied it, a spokesman for the criminal justice department refused to say. &quot;We are not disclosing the identity of the pharmacy because of previous, specific threats of serious physical harm made against businesses and their employees that have provided drugs used in the lethal injection process,&quot; said the spokesman. He cited protests by death-penalty opponents against a Houston pharmacy that previously supplied lethal drugs to the state.</p>
<p>Imagine that! Protests against a provider of lethal drugs. I don’t recall Texas getting so worked up about pro-life demonstrations or harassment when they’ve targeted abortion clinics.</p>
<p>You can’t have it both ways, Texas. If you want to argue that abortion is wrong but capital punishment is OK, go right ahead. But good luck explaining why we’re allowed to know about one and not the other.</p>Fri, 21 Mar 2014 15:27:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/21/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_does_texas_protect_pharmacies_that_sell.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-21T15:27:00ZNews and PoliticsTexas Exposes Sellers of Abortion Drugs. Why Does It Conceal Sellers of Execution Drugs?244140321001death penaltyabortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/21/abortion_and_the_death_penalty_why_does_texas_protect_pharmacies_that_sell.htmlfalsefalsefalseTexas exposes clinics that sell abortion drugs. So why does it conceal pharmacies that sell execution drugs?Texas Exposes Sellers of Abortion Drugs. Why Does It Conceal Sellers of Execution Drugs?Photo by Stewart F. House/Getty ImagesGov. Rick Perry, R-Texas, at the National Right to Life convention, June 27, 2013.The Arc of Historyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.html
<p>For the last couple of weeks, I’ve been <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html">defending people</a> who <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html">oppose gay marriage</a>. That feels pretty strange, since I’ve <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2003/11/its_the_commitment_stupid.html">advocated gay marriage</a> for more than 20 years. My defense of the other side has put me <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/03/ross_douthat_religious_liberty_homophobia_is_more_acceptable_than_racism.html">at odds with friends and colleagues</a>—most recently, Nathaniel Frank, who <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/17/gay_marriage_and_racism_there_s_nothing_rational_about_opposing_gay_marriage.html">took issue with me yesterday</a> in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s LGBT blog, <em><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward.html">Outward</a></em>. I wish I could say that we’re all on the same team, and that’s all that matters. But I don’t believe that. The rhetoric I’m hearing from the left worries me. We’re in danger of shutting down a cultural conversation that’s going our way.</p>
<p>Frank’s essay raises several good questions. Let me try to address them.</p>
<p><strong>1. Procreation.</strong> The strongest argument against gay marriage is that no matter how loving and committed a same-sex relationship is, it can’t be a marriage, because <a href="http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf">marriage has always revolved around the idea of procreation</a>, and same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together. This rule is full of loopholes: infertility or age for opposite-sex couples; adoption, sperm donors, or surrogates for same-sex couples.</p>
<p>Frank says the loopholes discredit the rule. On balance, I agree. I’ve <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/03/homosexuality_as_infertility_how_to_end_the_gay_marriage_debate.html">made that argument</a> to opponents of gay marriage. But it’s not a no-brainer. Interrogating every marriage applicant about his or her intention to procreate would be an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1594036225/?tag=slatmaga-20">intrusive nightmare</a>. In contrast, it’s common to ask about the applicant’s sex.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t yield to that rebuttal. I’d argue that if we’re serious about enforcing the procreation rule, age, too, is a relatively simple line to draw. If you apply for a marriage license, we could ask your age just as easily as we ask your sex, and rule you out if you were too old to procreate. But then the other side could protest that we don’t revoke the marriages of people who married young and are now old, so it seems odd to prohibit other old people from marrying.</p>
<p>The exchange would go on and on. And that’s the point. I believe my side has the better arguments. But when we conclude from this that our adversaries are so irrational or bigoted that they can’t be tolerated, we’re pushing the definition of irrationality too far. We’re shutting down the conversation prematurely.</p>
<p><strong>2. Religion.</strong> As opponents of gay marriage dwindle to a minority, they increasingly <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/02/homosexuality_religious_freedom_and_interracial_sex_is_bobby_jindal_the.html">invoke religious freedom</a>. Frank notes that this argument is untethered by evidence or logic—it holds that people are simply “entitled to their beliefs”—and therefore, in theory, it would protect the right to discriminate on the basis race as well as sexual orientation. He’s right to raise that concern. We <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/02/homosexuality_religious_freedom_and_interracial_sex_is_bobby_jindal_the.html">shouldn’t accept</a> such blanket exemptions. People accused of discrimination must produce a rational defense, not a purely religious one.</p>
<p><strong>3. History.</strong> Frank refuses to be cowed by the argument that marriage has traditionally been heterosexual. “The fact that something has ‘historically’ been defined in a particular way is not an argument that it should remain that way,” he writes. That’s true. History alone doesn’t prove an institution’s merit. But when we’re talking about reinterpreting an institution to include a new class of relationships, the history of that institution is relevant. In the case of marriage, concerns such as tribalism and property, which used to saturate the institution, have lost some of their power. For that, we should be grateful. But no premise has been more central to marriage than heterosexuality. If we’re going to scrap that premise—and I agree that we should—let’s be honest about what we’re doing. We’re profoundly changing the institution.</p>
<p><strong>4. Discrimination.</strong> Frank says court rulings show “there is no rational basis for sexual orientation discrimination—including in marriage.” I’m not so sure that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is just another kind of discrimination. Why, for the last 50 years, has it been illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex (under the <a href="http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/">Civil Rights Act</a>) but perfectly legal to insist that a woman’s spouse has to be a man? The reason seems to be that we treat marriage differently from education and employment. The idea that nondiscrimination in matters of gender ought to extend to marriage is quite recent. Is anyone who hasn’t reached that conclusion in 2014 irrational?</p>
<p><strong>5. Progress.</strong> Frank concludes with these thoughts:</p>
<blockquote>
Gay marriage is a more recent conceptual possibility because gay identity is a newer development than the construction of race. In a sense, since views on this issue have changed so rapidly, it seems only fair to, as Andrew Sullivan&nbsp;
<a href="http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/02/24/erick-erickson-has-a-point/">puts it</a>, give people “space” to come along, or even to hold bigoted views in peace. But calling these views today “rational” or “defensible,” or saying they can be “accommodated in a decent society,”&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html">as Saletan does</a>, is another matter. Moral positions evolve as new information and possibilities become available. And for all the incessant moralizing of the right wing over the last 50 years, the sin of current opponents of gay marriage is an unwillingness to open their minds to change. There comes a time when there’s only one morally correct answer, and the space for having the wrong answer has dried up. I’d argue that time has come.
</blockquote>
<p>This is a beautiful paragraph. I agree with most of it, right up to the point where Frank says opponents of gay marriage haven’t changed. In fact, they’ve changed enormously. On every question, from sodomy laws to job discrimination to marriage, anti-gay politicians and activists have <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx">lost public support</a>. The fact that they’re now fighting over same-sex marriage, an idea that was once politically absurd, underscores their retreat. People who would have equated homosexuality with pedophilia 50 years ago have come to accept domestic partnerships or civil unions. Too many gay people have come out. The myths and fears have lost too much credibility. The culture is changing.</p>
<p>We’re not the losers in this fight anymore. We’re the winners. Our task now is to win the right way, not by dismissing our opponents as bigots and haters, but by persuading them that marriage is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Good-Straights-America/dp/0805078150/?tag=slatmaga-20">just as good for gays</a> as <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/11/gay_marriage_votes_and_andrew_sullivan_his_landmark_1989_essay_making_a.html">it is for straights</a>. We don’t have to shove our answer down their throats. They will come around to it—they’re coming around to it already—because it’s true.</p>Tue, 18 Mar 2014 18:02:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-18T18:02:00ZNews and PoliticsWe Don’t Need To Shut Down the Gay Marriage Debate. We’re Winning It.244140318001gay marriagehomosexualityreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.htmlfalsefalsefalseWe don’t need to shut down the gay marriage debate. We’re winning it.We Don’t Need To Shut Down the Gay Marriage Debate. We’re Winning It.Photo by Leon Neal/AFP/Getty ImagesA rainbow flag outside the U.K. Houses of Parliament in support of same-sex marriage, June 3, 2013.The Crimean Farcehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/17/crimea_referendum_2014_russia_s_margin_of_victory_shows_the_election_was.html
<p>The people of Crimea have spoken. In yesterday’s referendum, they voted overwhelmingly to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. According to Russia’s <a href="http://en.itar-tass.com/pages/today">Itar-Tass news agency</a>, the vote was <a href="http://en.itar-tass.com/world/723819">93 percent to 7 percent</a>. According to <em><a href="http://rt.com/about-us/">Russia Today</a></em>, it was <a href="http://rt.com/news/crimea-vote-join-russia-210/">96 percent to 3 percent</a>.</p>
<p>It’s an amazing victory. Even more amazing when you consider that according to the most recent census, <a href="http://2001.ukrcensus.gov.ua/eng/results/general/nationality/Crimea">37 percent of the Crimean population is ethnically Ukrainian or Tatar</a>. Yet only 3 to 7 percent voted against leaving Ukraine and embracing Mother Russia.</p>
<p>To be fair, it’s not quite as amazing as last week’s election in North Korea. There, beloved leader Kim Jong-in was re-elected to the parliament with <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26483940">100 percent</a> of the vote. The ruling party holds <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/world/asia/north-korea-elections/">all 687 seats</a>. And last year in Cuba, voters approved <a href="http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=87343">100 percent of the national assembly candidates</a> put forward by official nominating committees.</p>
<p>How do exemplary democracies such as Russia, Cuba, and North Korea achieve these mandates? By rigging them, of course. As Charles Krauthammer pointed out long ago, <a href="http://articles.philly.com/1987-01-14/news/26187655_1_eugene-hasenfus-people-s-tribunal-ruling-party">the fraudulence of an election is proportionate to the margin of victory</a>. My colleague Joshua Keating recently <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2013/10/10/azerbaijan_election_rigging_president_does_even_better_than_the_early_results.html">updated this pattern</a> with <a href="http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/13/the_dictators_dilemma_to_win_with_95_percent_or_99">stellar vote shares</a> from Azerbaijan (85 percent), Kazakhstan (91 percent), Belorussia (93 percent), Turkmenistan (97 percent), Syria (98 percent), and Chechnya (99 percent). In <em><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Dictators-Learning-Curve-Democracy/dp/030747755X/?tag=slatmaga-20">The Dictator’s Learning Curve</a><strong>, Slate</strong></em>’s William J. Dobson notes that smarter tyrants have learned to water down such ridiculous margins.</p>
<p>Last year’s official report on the Cuban election, published by the Communist Party news outlet, <em>Granma</em>, <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20130807084616/http:/www.granma.cu/ingles/cuba-i/8feb-National-Assembly.html">began this way</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The 612 candidates for deputies to the National Assembly of People's Power and the 1,269 candidates for delegates to the 15 Provincial Assemblies of People's Power, were elected on February 3, according to information given by Alina Balseiro Guti&eacute;rrez, president of the National Electoral Commission (CEN), in a press conference. Once again, Cubans exercised their universal, free and democratic right to elect their representatives, she affirmed.
</blockquote>
<p>The first word in the story—“the”—explains the rest. In Cuba, <a href="http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=86663">no alternative candidates are on the ballot</a>. You can vote for the official candidate, or you can vote against him and take your chances. Among the nearly 2,000 official candidates, not one was rejected. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/07/world/asia/north-korea-elections/">Same deal in North Korea</a>.</p>
<p>In Crimea, the recipe for overwhelming victory was subtler. First, you <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26598832">narrow the ballot to two choices</a>: joining Russia or increasing Crimea’s autonomy from Ukraine. You <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26514797">exclude the status quo</a>. Then you saturate Crimea with <a href="http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/voting-in-crimean-referendum-starts-even-as-ukraine-government-declares-it-illegitimate-339523.html">21,000 Russian troops</a> and put armed men outside polling stations.</p>
<p>The effects are impressive. All the voters emerging from a Simferopol polling station told the <em><a href="http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/voting-in-crimean-referendum-starts-even-as-ukraine-government-declares-it-illegitimate-339523.html">Kyiv Post</a></em> they voted to join Russia. &quot;We are Russians,” one woman explained. Meanwhile, in a district “where many Crimean Tatars live … only 10 percent of registered voters were reported to have taken part in the referendum. The <em>Kyiv Post</em> saw just one Crimean Tatar couple there. They refused to give comments.” The <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/17/world/europe/crimea-ukraine-secession-vote-referendum.html">New York Times</a></em> adds:</p>
<blockquote>
Citizens with misgivings about joining Mr. Putin’s Russian Federation, particularly Crimean Tatars, a Muslim Turkic people with a history of persecution by Russia, generally opted to stay home rather than participate in what they called a rigged vote. At a cultural center that served as a polling station in Bakhchysaray, the historical home of Crimean Tatars, few if any Tatars were casting ballots.
</blockquote>
<p>The Crimean election reminds me of a focus group I observed years ago, after <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> had erected a pay wall. Microsoft, which then owned <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>, had recruited members of the focus group from people who said they had visited the site recently. I listened to everything the participants said and took notes. I thought I was learning what our audience thought.</p>
<p>After the session was over, the moderator came backstage to talk to me and the other observers. The important finding in the focus group, he explained, wasn’t what the people in the room thought. The important finding was that all of them had been reading <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> before we put up the pay wall. We weren’t acquiring new readers. The pay wall was killing us.</p>
<p>The lesson from Crimea is similar. Sometimes the message of an election isn’t what the voters said. It’s who didn’t vote. In Crimea, the people we needed to hear from weren’t even in the room.</p>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 16:25:24 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/17/crimea_referendum_2014_russia_s_margin_of_victory_shows_the_election_was.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-17T16:25:24ZNews and PoliticsRussia’s 90-Plus Percent Victory in Crimea Tells You the Referendum Was a Joke244140317001russiaukraineWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/17/crimea_referendum_2014_russia_s_margin_of_victory_shows_the_election_was.htmlfalsefalsefalseRussia’s 93% victory in Crimea (where Russians are just 58% of the population) shows the referendum was a joke.Russia’s 90-Plus Percent Victory in Crimea Tells You the Referendum Was a JokePhoto by Viktor Drachev/AFP/Getty ImagesA policeman votes at a Crimean polling station on March 16, 2014.Keep Texting, Stop Drivinghttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/13/keep_texting_stop_driving_autonomous_cars_will_let_you_focus_on_your_phone.html
<p>Remember that guy in California who <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/28/driving_while_texting_mobile_phone_technology_is_making_laws_against_phone.html">beat a ticket for using his phone as a map</a> while driving? He was looking for alternative routes while stuck in traffic. Two weeks ago he <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/02/27/3794097/fresno-driver-shouldnt-be-ticketed.html">won his court case</a>, because California’s law against using your phone while driving was behind the times. It treated your phone as something you talk on, not something you use to check a map.</p>
<p>Now California is trying to get ahead of the curve. On Tuesday the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles held a hearing on the “<a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/newsrel/newsrel14/2014_15.htm">operation of self–driving or autonomous vehicles on California’s public roadways</a>.” We already have cars that can park themselves or adjust their steering to stay within lanes. According to the <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/11/6229347/california-pushes-to-finish-driverless.html">Associated Press</a>, Google’s fleet of vehicles, equipped with lasers and radar, has driven “hundreds of thousands of miles in California,” and car companies are testing new models.</p>
<p>Increasingly autonomous cars will be a great thing for many reasons. One reason is that they’ll solve the problem of using your phone while driving. We’ve been looking at this problem all wrong. We’ve been telling you to put down your phone and focus on the road. We should be telling you to focus on your phone and hand over the wheel.</p>
<p>I've been waiting for this technology <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/27/books/review/Saletan">for years</a>. So has my former colleague, Farhad Manjoo, who wrote a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2010/10/dont_worry_the_robots_driving.html">terrific piece about it in <em><strong>Slate</strong></em></a>. Now we're getting real about implementing it.</p>
<p>The California hearing raised many questions. One is privacy. California <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/09/25/google_self_driving_car_california_approves_autonomous_vehicles_leaves_regulations_to_dmv.html">already has a law</a> requiring each autonomous car to record its activities so that if it gets into an accident, investigators can detect what happened. If you’re a car insurer, wouldn’t you like that data? If you’re the car’s owner, should you have to surrender that data?</p>
<p>Another question is hacking. According to the AP, “industry representatives” at the hearing assured everyone “they would vigilantly guard against such vulnerability.” Good luck with that.</p>
<p>The most difficult question seems to be the relationships between cars and humans. In early versions of autonomous vehicles, “human drivers would be expected to take control in an instant if the computer systems fail,” the AP reports. But at the hearing,</p>
<blockquote>
DMV attorney Brian Soublet acknowledged that the department is still grappling with the most fundamental question of whether a person will need to be in the driver's seat. Maybe not, by the time the technology is safe and reliable, he said.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Soublet asked who would ensure that owners know how to use the new technology. Should the onus be on dealers, manufacturers, owners? Representatives of automakers suggested they shouldn't be asked to guarantee the capability of owners. John Tillman of Mercedes-Benz said the DMV could test owners on basics such as starting and stopping the automated driving function.
</blockquote>
<p>That exchange suggests a couple of things about the future of this technology. First, you can delegate the driving to your car, but you can’t delegate the responsibility. Car companies will be liable for making their vehicles reliable under proper use, but they’ll make sure you’re the one responsible for proper use. You might be free to spend your commute on the phone, but you’d better be ready to drop it and deal with a crisis.</p>
<p>Second, it’s a good bet that the chief problem with autonomous cars won’t be the cars. It’ll be us. Human error is already overwhelmingly responsible for crashes. Handing off the driving <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/07/13/eric_schmidt_on_self_driving_cars_biggest_problem_they_obey_speed_limits.html">will eventually reduce that toll</a>. But now we’ll have to learn how to program and supervise our vehicles. That job, too, can be screwed up. And you know the rule about anything that can be screwed up.</p>Thu, 13 Mar 2014 14:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/13/keep_texting_stop_driving_autonomous_cars_will_let_you_focus_on_your_phone.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-13T14:51:00ZNews and PoliticsKeep Texting. Stop Driving. Let the Car Do It for You.244140313001robotsautonomous vehiclesself-driving carsWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/13/keep_texting_stop_driving_autonomous_cars_will_let_you_focus_on_your_phone.htmlfalsefalsefalseKeep texting, stop driving. Let the car do it for you.Keep Texting. Stop Driving. Let the Car Do It for You.Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesA self-driving car at Google headquarters, Sept. 25, 2012.The Race Analogyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.html
<p>Is gay marriage just like interracial marriage? If you’re against gay marriage, is that the same as racism?</p>
<p>Hundreds of <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> readers have made that argument in comments posted over the last few days. They’ve raised the analogy in the context of a New Mexico couple who <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html">refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony</a>. That’s a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html">complex case</a>. But the race analogy is worth addressing on its own.</p>
<p>In many ways, today’s debate about same-sex marriage resembles earlier debates about interracial marriage. I’ve <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/02/homosexuality_religious_freedom_and_interracial_sex_is_bobby_jindal_the.html">drawn this analogy myself</a>. In at least two ways, however, the situations differ. From the discriminator’s standpoint, opposing same-sex marriage is more defensible. At the same time, from the target’s standpoint, it’s more oppressive.</p>
<p>The central, categorical objection to gay marriage is that same-sex couples can’t produce biological children together. Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson emphasize this distinction in their recent <a href="http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/GeorgeFinal.pdf">essay</a> and <a href="http://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225?tag=slatmaga-20">book</a>, <em>What Is Marriage?</em> My colleague Mark Stern <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/03/gay_marriage_and_sex_why_do_defenders_of_doma_and_prop_8_worship_coitus.html">challenged their case</a> in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> last year, and I agree with his critique. The procreation argument focuses too much on sex and too little on <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2003/11/its_the_commitment_stupid.html">love and commitment</a>.</p>
<p>Just because I don’t agree with an argument, however, doesn’t mean it’s irrational. Marriage has historically been a sexual institution. A rational person can maintain that a relationship between two people categorically incapable of producing children together—that is, two people of the same sex—can’t be a marriage. That argument doesn’t justify denying them the right to love one another openly, nor does it justify denying them the benefits and honors we bestow on couples for making lifetime commitments. But it can justify a person’s refusal to accept a same-sex relationship as a marriage.</p>
<p>The argument has plenty of problems. We let old people marry. We let infertile people marry. We don’t insist that married couples produce kids. We welcome adoption and stepfamilies. Gay couples can have kids using donated eggs or sperm. Many gay people are already raising children, and doing it just as well as straight people.</p>
<p>All of that is true. But I’d be remiss to omit the rejoinder from George and his colleagues: Sex is a much brighter line than fertility or intention to bear children. It’s certainly a less intrusive distinction to enforce.</p>
<p>Many people think that this distinction is important enough to withhold the word “marriage” from same-sex couples; I think those people are being unjust and obtuse to the moral reality of homosexual love. But I can’t dismiss them as irrational.</p>
<p>I can, however, dismiss as irrational any objection to interracial marriage. Stern <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/03/ross_douthat_religious_liberty_homophobia_is_more_acceptable_than_racism.html">points</a> to <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/">Ian Millhiser’s useful summary</a> of religious arguments that were once made against interracial marriage. They include:</p>
<blockquote>
“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”
<em></em>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Purity of race is a gift of God.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“[T]he good Lord was the original segregationist.”
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“God made racial differences as He made sexual differences.”
</blockquote>
<p>These statements are objectively false. <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16018.full">Every scientific review</a> of <a href="http://news.discovery.com/human/evolution/out-of-africa-skull-may-trim-human-family-tree-131017.htm">human history</a> has found that <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/resources/intro-human-evolution">racial distinctions are not categorical and continue to change</a>. People of different races produce kids together all the time. There’s no biological basis for refusing to accept an interracial relationship as a marriage.</p>
<p>That’s why, from the discriminator’s standpoint, it’s more defensible to oppose gay marriage than to oppose interracial marriage. But why confine ourselves to that standpoint? Why not consider the perspective of the person targeted by the discrimination?</p>
<p>From the perspective of a would-be spouse, being denied the right to same-sex marriage can be, in some ways, worse. If you’re attracted to someone of another race, and the law won’t let you marry anyone of that race, you can find someone of your own race to marry. You shouldn’t have to do that, but you can. But if you’re exclusively attracted to people of your own sex, and the law forbids you to marry such a person, then everything conservatives praise about marriage—the sharing, the happiness, the fulfillment, the solemnity, the respect—is denied to you.</p>
<p>Many useful comparisons can be drawn between between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. But let’s not pretend they're exactly the same. For better and for worse, they aren't.<br /> </p>Wed, 12 Mar 2014 19:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-12T19:26:00ZNews and PoliticsWhy Opposing Gay Marriage Is Different From Racism244140312001gay marriageracismhomosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/12/homosexuality_and_racism_why_gay_marriage_and_interracial_marriage_are_different.htmlfalsefalsefalseNo, opposing same-sex marriage is not the same as opposing interracial marriage.Why Opposing Gay Marriage Is Different From RacismPhoto by Sam Yeh/AFP/Getty ImagesProtesters demonstrate against same-sex marriage in Taiwan on Nov. 30, 2013.When Pro-Marriage Becomes Anti-Gayhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.html
<p>For the last week, several writers with diverse views on gay marriage—<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html">Ross Douthat</a>, <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/03/ross_douthat_religious_liberty_homophobia_is_more_acceptable_than_racism.html">Mark</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/06/homophobia_bigotry_prejudice_conor_friedersdorf_calls_me_ignorant.html">Stern</a>, <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/">Conor Friedersdorf</a>, <a href="http://crookedtimber.org/2014/03/05/principled-bigotry-is-still-you-know-bigotry/">Henry Farrell</a>, <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ross-douthat-public-enemy-no-1/">Rod Dreher</a>, <a href="http://theweek.com/article/index/257628/who-are-the-real-gay-marriage-bigots">Damon Linker</a>, and others—have been debating the case of <a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/5537">Elaine and Jon Huguenin</a>, the <a href="https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights/elane-photography-llc-v-vanessa-willock">New Mexico photographers</a> who were <a href="http://www.volokh.com/files/willockopinion.pdf">found guilty of discrimination</a> for refusing to take pictures of a same-sex commitment ceremony. On Friday I joined the debate on Friedersdorf’s side, arguing that the email exchange in which Elaine Huguenin declined to photograph the ceremony <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html">showed no ill will</a>.</p>
<p>Huguenin said she had no problem photographing gay clients; she just couldn’t participate in a same-sex marital ceremony, since marriage, in her view, could only be between a man and a woman. I disagree with that view. But because her policy was not anti-gay beyond the context of marriage, I concluded that it was not inherently bigoted.</p>
<p>But I didn’t feel comfortable with the limited information we had about the Huguenins. To me, the most important thing in a case like this one is to grapple with the real-life complexity of the story. So I asked the lawyers in the case for a transcript of the 2008 hearing in which the Huguenins explained themselves to the <a href="http://governor.state.nm.us/Human_Rights.aspx">New Mexico Human Rights Commission</a>.</p>
<p>Last night I read the transcript. It taught me something interesting: The Huguenins might not be entirely on the same page.</p>
<p>Both spouses say their opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the Bible. Jon quotes <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19:4-6">Matthew 19:4</a> and <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen.2.24">Genesis 2:24</a>, which say a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. Those verses are specific to marriage. Jon doesn’t quote <a href="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20:13">Leviticus 20:13</a>, which says it’s an abomination for a man to have sex with another man. But if his objection to gay marriage is based on this kind of Bible-reading, it’s highly plausible that it extends to homosexual behavior in general.</p>
<p>Elaine doesn’t quote Scripture. She just cites the Bible as her basis for believing “that marriage is between one man and one woman.” And she distinguishes between gay relationships and gay marriage. At one point, her attorney, Jordan Lorence, reads from the 2006 email exchange in which she declined a request from the plaintiff, Vanessa Willock, to photograph Willock’s lesbian commitment ceremony. Lorence notes that Willock asked Elaine Huguenin, “Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?” In her email reply, Huguenin rephrased the question: “Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings.”</p>
<p>In the hearing, Lorence asks Huguenin, “Why did you put it that way?” She responds:</p>
<blockquote>
I just felt like I needed to rephrase it, because the original was to “same-sex couples.” But, you know, if somebody has a same-sex preference, like a same-sex sexual orientation, then, you know—again, I don't have a problem, you know, shooting portraits, whatever. But it's just the … the weddings, the messaging-the-wedding-has part of it, I declined.
</blockquote>
<p>Willock’s attorney, Julia Sakura, cross-examines Huguenin:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>So, in this email, you declined your services to Ms. Willock. Is that correct?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>Yes, correct.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>And you did so because it was a same-sex relationship, is that correct?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>No. For a same-sex wedding.
</blockquote>
<p>Maybe Elaine Huguenin would refuse to photograph a gay couple in a nonmarital context. But at no point in the hearing does she say that. Again and again, she confines her objections to marriage.</p>
<p>That’s not true of Jon Huguenin. Under Sakura’s cross-examination, he goes further:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>You just testified that … [y]ou would take a picture of two women from a different country if they were very heterosexual-looking. Is that correct?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>Not [heterosexual]-looking. I said we wouldn't take a picture, regardless of their sexual preference, if the image implied that, you know, if they were holding hands or showing affection and implying that something other than one woman and one man in marriage is okay. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>I believe your example was two women from a different country, if they were heterosexual—you used that term—and they were holding hands, you would take that picture.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>We would not take that picture.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>You would not? Why is that?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>Because the message of the picture communicates—regardless of the sexual orientation of the people in the photo—the message of that communicates something other than what we believe marriage should be. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Q: </strong>What you're saying is, even outside the context of a traditional wedding, if it were merely two women holding hands, and it did not convey a message that you believed, then you would not take that picture? Is that correct? … What you're saying is, just two women holding hands, you would not take that picture, because it may convey a message that you do not believe in, even if that picture was just two women holding hands?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>A: </strong>I can't answer you absolutely … but if that picture was taken, and the message could be construed or conveyed—or we felt it was being conveyed—as support for anything other than one woman and one man in marriage, then we would not take that photo.
</blockquote>
<p>Throughout this exchange, Sakura is pretty clear that she’s not talking about a wedding photo. She’s talking about two women holding hands outside that context. And Jon Huguenin’s answer is that he wouldn’t take the picture “if they were holding hands or showing affection and implying that something other than one woman and one man in marriage is okay.” He wouldn’t take any picture if “the message could be construed or conveyed” as supporting gay marriage.</p>
<p>If I understand him correctly, Jon Huguenin is saying that any overt display of homosexual affection could be construed as endorsing same-sex marriage, and therefore he reserves the right to refuse to photograph any such display.</p>
<p>From my reading of the transcript, I wouldn’t call the Huguenins bigoted or hateful. But they’re certainly ignorant—they refer to homosexuality as a preference, lifestyle, and choice—and their ignorance seems to explain their misguided belief that gay marriage is some kind of cultural illness that can be managed by sending the right “messages.”</p>
<p>The more acute problem, legally, is that Jon Huguenin’s claims go well beyond Elaine’s. In the name of avoiding anything that could be perceived as promoting same-sex marriage, he seems to be asserting a right not to take any picture of a gay couple being gay. Imagine a photographer telling you that he’ll do your portrait but won’t take a picture of you doing anything heterosexual: no kissing, hugging, holding hands, or even meaningful glances. That’s more than a doctrine of marriage. It’s a denial of who you are.</p>
<p>Elaine Huguenin’s position, noxious as it is to many people, can be accommodated in a decent society. I’m not so sure the same is true of her husband’s. Refusing to photograph someone with the person she loves—indeed, with anyone she might love, given her orientation—is oppressively broad. It’s suffocating. It rejects too much of her, too much of what she can’t change. If the Huguenins recognized homosexuality for what it is—an orientation, not a choice—they’d understand that.</p>Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:23:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-11T14:23:00ZNews and PoliticsA Policy Against Gay Marriage Is One Thing. But a Policy Against Gay Expression Goes Too Far.244140311001gay marriagehomosexualityreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/11/gay_marriage_photographer_case_when_does_religious_freedom_become_anti_gay.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe photographer couple in the gay marriage case might have a disagreement. She's anti-gay-marriage. Is he anti-gay?A Policy Against Gay Marriage Is One Thing. But a Policy Against Gay Expression Goes Too Far.Photo by Craig Mitchelldyer/Getty ImagesA long-term same-sex couple in Oregon, on May 9, 2007. Does this picture violate your religious beliefs?The Gates Republicanshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/10/on_russia_and_ukraine_bob_gates_tells_the_truth_dick_cheney_doesn_t.html
<p>If you’re reading this blog, there’s a good chance you’re liberal. Certainly, <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s reader comments show a strong leftward tilt. Many of them express sweeping contempt for Republicans. That’s understandable, because much of the GOP has gone off the deep end. When you watch the brain-dead House Republicans vote week after week to repeal Obamacare, or the latest Tea Party nut job call President Obama a traitor, it’s hard to take Republicans seriously.</p>
<p>But keep an open mind. There are lots of sane people in the Republican Party. They’re just not the ones who shout and get all the airtime. Here’s an illustration of the difference. Let’s start with the kind of Republican you’re familiar with: former Vice President Dick Cheney. Sunday on <em>Face the Nation</em>, Charlie Rose interviewed him about the crisis in Ukraine. Here’s <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-march-9-cheney-ryan-baker/">part of the exchange</a>, in which Rose brings up Russia’s 2008 intervention in neighboring Georgia:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Cheney:</strong> We have created an image around the world, not just for the Russians, of weakness and indecisiveness. The Syrian situation’s a classic. We got all ready to do something. A lot of the allies sign on. At the last minute, Obama backed off. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Rose:</strong> But, as you know, in Georgia, people will make the case that Russian troops remain, and that it was a very different situation, because we did not or were not able to respond more. So what's the lesson of that, in your own administration?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Cheney:</strong> The lesson of that, I think, it was—it came at a time, sort of at the end of the Bush administration, the beginning of the Obama administration. But it was of deep concern to our friends in Western Europe. We did take some steps in terms of providing assistance to Georgia. We have ships in the region and so forth. So there were steps taken, but they weren't effective in terms of driving Putin out. And part of the problem in that case, there was a question about who actually provoked whom with respect to the Georgians and the Russians.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s vintage Cheney. He starts off by blaming Russian aggression in Ukraine on Obama’s weakness. Rose points out that Russia did much the same thing in Georgia when Cheney was vice president, and that Cheney and President Bush didn’t do more about it than Obama is doing now. The implication in Rose’s remark is that if anything emboldened Russia to send troops to Ukraine, it was what Bush and Cheney did in Georgia, not what Obama did in Syria.</p>
<p>Cheney’s response is to pretend that the Russian aggression against Georgia came at “the beginning of the Obama administration.” That’s hilarious. Read <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Georgia%E2%80%93Russia_crisis">the chronology</a>: All the action that might have been deterred by a stronger U.S. response, even theoretically, was over by the time Bush and Cheney left office. Cheney’s parting excuse—that “there was a question about who actually provoked whom” in Georgia—is valid. But that’s also true in Ukraine, where, as <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s Fred Kaplan <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/03/barack_obama_vladimir_putin_and_ukraine_the_president_has_bungled_his_dealings.html">points out</a>, the parliament dissolved the courts and threw out the Russian-backed president without properly impeaching him. Cheney applies the “she asked for it” excuse to his own situation, but not to Obama’s.</p>
<p>Contrast that performance with the comments of Bob Gates on <em><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2014/03/09/robert-gates-ukraine-crisis-reset-russia-sen-rand-paul-lays-out-vision-america-cpac">Fox News Sunday</a></em>. Gates served former Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush as deputy director and then director of the CIA. He was defense secretary to George W. Bush and remained in that job, until 2011, under Obama. Yesterday, Chris Wallace prodded him to give the Obama-bashing answers Fox News viewers wanted to hear. Gates disappointed them.</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Wallace:</strong>&nbsp;You've defended President Obama's handling of the situation this week. But in January you said you thought that President Obama made a big mistake when he set the red line for the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Here's what you warned: &quot;If you cock the pistol you've got to be willing to fire it.&quot; By &quot;cocking the pistol”—whether it's on the red line in Syria or giving asylum to Edward Snowden—and then not firing it, you really don't think that President Obama has emboldened Putin at all? …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Gates:</strong>&nbsp;Putin invaded Georgia when George W. Bush was president. Nobody ever accused George W. Bush of being weak or unwilling to use military force. So I think Putin is very opportunistic in these arenas. I think that even if we had launched attacks in Syria, even if we weren't cutting our defense budget, I think Putin saw an opportunity here in Crimea, and he has seized it. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Wallace:</strong>&nbsp;But just in terms of optics, do you think it's helpful for President Obama to take the weekend off in the middle of what you call a crisis to be playing golf in Florida?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Gates:</strong>&nbsp;Well, you know, I've seen this happen year after year, president after president. President takes a day or two off and plays golf. It doesn't matter whether it's President Obama, or the first President Bush going fishing. I think you've got to give these guys a little time off. You know, mostly they are working 20 hours a day.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s what happens when there’s an adult in the room. The hypocrisy of whining about Obama’s golf game, or blaming him for Russian aggression, gets called out for what it is.</p>
<p>Gates’ candor and fairness are worth your respect. They’re also worth emulating. Give him and other reasonable Republicans the courtesy they give Obama. And when they disagree with you, hear them out.</p>Mon, 10 Mar 2014 14:24:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/10/on_russia_and_ukraine_bob_gates_tells_the_truth_dick_cheney_doesn_t.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-10T14:24:00ZNews and PoliticsBob Gates and Other Sensible Republicans Are Fair to Obama. Give Them the Same Courtesy.244140310001russiaukraineWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/10/on_russia_and_ukraine_bob_gates_tells_the_truth_dick_cheney_doesn_t.htmlfalsefalsefalseOn Russia and Ukraine, Bob Gates tells the truth. Dick Cheney doesn’t.Bob Gates and Other Sensible Republicans Are Fair to Obama. Give Them the Same Courtesy.Photo by Pete Souza/White House Photo via Getty ImagesSecretary of Defense Bob Gates in the White House Situation Room during the U.S. raid on Osama Bin Laden.The Photographer’s Storyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.html
<p>Is everyone who opposes gay marriage a bigot? If a photographer declines to participate in a same-sex wedding, should she be held legally liable, on that basis alone, for discrimination?</p>
<p>I don’t think so. Over the past several days, I’ve been following a lively exchange on this topic between Ross Douthat of the <em>New York Times</em>, Mark Joseph Stern of <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>, and Conor Friedersdorf of the <em>Atlantic</em>. I like all three of these writers. I was a best man at a same-sex wedding <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/ballot_box/2003/11/its_the_commitment_stupid.html">23 years ago</a>, and I was a fan of gay marriage even before that. But I’m disturbed by what I see today. We’re stereotyping and vilifying opponents of gay marriage the way we’ve seen gay people stereotyped and vilified. This is a deeply personal moral issue. To get it right, we need more than justice. We need humanity.</p>
<p>The exchange began on Sunday, with <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/02/opinion/sunday/the-terms-of-our-surrender.html">Douthat’s column</a> about proprietors who decline, on religious grounds, to participate in same-sex weddings. On Monday, Stern <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/03/ross_douthat_religious_liberty_homophobia_is_more_acceptable_than_racism.html">denounced these proprietors</a>—“that infamous trio: a<a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020743969_floristlawsuitxml.html">&nbsp;florist</a>, a<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/weighing-free-speech-in-refusal-to-photograph-ceremony.html">&nbsp;photographer</a>, and a<a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/12/10/250098572/no-cake-for-you-saying-i-dont-to-same-sex-marriage">&nbsp;baker</a>, who claimed their Christianity required that they deny service to gay couples.” Criticizing these and other “bigots,” Stern asserted that “their ‘dissent’ is a hatred of gay people so vehement that they’ll violate non-discrimination laws just to make sure they never, ever have to provide a gay person with a basic service.”</p>
<p>On Wednesday, Friedersdorf <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/">challenged Stern’s characterization</a> of the dissenters. Friedersdorf quoted from the photographer’s &nbsp;<a href="http://www.adfmedia.org/files/ElanePhotoCertPetition.pdf">petition to the U.S. Supreme Court</a>, which gave her account of the events leading to her conviction for discrimination. The email exchange between the photographer, Elaine Huguenin, and the prospective lesbian client, Vanessa Willock, didn’t seem hateful:</p>
<blockquote>
[From Willock] We are researching potential photographers for our commitment ceremony on September 15, 2007 in Taos, NM. This is a same-gender ceremony. If you are open to helping us celebrate our day we'd like to receive pricing information.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[From Huguenin] Hello Vanessa, As a company, we photograph traditional weddings, engagements, seniors, and several other things such as political photographs and singer's portfolios.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[From Willock] Hi Elaine,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Thanks for your response below of September 21, 2006. I'm a bit confused, however, by the wording of your response. Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
[From Huguenin] Hello Vanessa,
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Sorry if our last response was a confusing one. Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings, but again, thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day.
</blockquote>
<p>Friedersdorf went on to quote the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which found Huguenin guilty of discrimination: “Ms. Willock thought that Ms. Elaine Huguenin's response was an expression of hatred.” Friedersdorf didn’t see hatred in Huguenin’s words. He also pointed out that according to her petition,</p>
<blockquote>
the Huguenins' photography business does serve gay and lesbian clients, just not same-sex weddings. Insofar as a photographer can distinguish between discriminating against a class of client and a type of event—there is, perhaps, a limit—their business does so: &quot;The Huguenins gladly serve gays and lesbians—by, for example, providing them with portrait photography—whenever doing so would not require them to create expression conveying messages that conflict with their religious beliefs.&quot;&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<p>To me, that’s a prima facie case that Huguenin’s decision wasn’t driven by hatred or by animus against gay people. Stern disagrees. Yesterday in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>, he wrote that “<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/06/homophobia_bigotry_prejudice_conor_friedersdorf_calls_me_ignorant.html">when Huguenin refused to serve a gay couple because they are a gay couple, she was being homophobic</a>.” He added that “the ultimate effect of her actions is the same as if she had placed a sign on her shop door stating ‘No Gay Couples Served Here.’”</p>
<p>On the evidence we have, this description of Huguenin’s motives and effects is inaccurate. She claims that she and her husband, who share the photography business, “gladly serve gays and lesbians.” Is there any evidence of a case in which a gay couple came to the Huguenins for any service other than a marital commitment ceremony and was turned away? We also have, in the quoted emails, no evidence strong enough to support Stern’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/06/homophobia_bigotry_prejudice_conor_friedersdorf_calls_me_ignorant.html">suggestion</a> that her response “arises from the same place as any kind of bigotry: hate, fear, ignorance, or whatever base emotions lead a person to believe that some humans are less worthy than others.”</p>
<p>It’s true that Huguenin is drawing a distinction between gay and straight couples. But she’s also drawing a distinction between portraiture and weddings. In analyzing her motives and effects, we have to consider both distinctions.</p>
<p>Why does Stern attribute bigotry to Huguenin? On this point, he’s quite clear. He doesn’t base it on a precise assessment of her case. He infers it from an equation. He <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/06/homophobia_bigotry_prejudice_conor_friedersdorf_calls_me_ignorant.html">disputes the very idea</a> that “there are reasons other than homophobia that explain why a business owner might refuse service to gay people.” To support this claim, he invokes science:</p>
<blockquote>
[M]y Outward colleague Nathaniel Frank wrote a&nbsp;
<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/how-the-mind-rationalizes-homophobia/283998/">wonderful article</a> in the&nbsp;
<em>Atlantic</em>&nbsp;just last month exploring the research into the impulses behind homophobia. Most psychologists define homophobia as having “some level of emotional discomfort around homosexuality,” and many have found that anti-gay animus is almost always provoked by irrational disgust, complemented by fear and repugnance. In numerous studies, subjects with varying levels of anti-gay animus have been found to share this basic impulse of disgust toward gay people; it’s a seemingly universal quality in those who oppose gay rights. I do not think it is prejudiced or ignorant to believe that it was a form of this disgust that drove Huguenin to turn away Willock’s business …
</blockquote>
<p>But none of this research warrants a generalization that would encompass Huguenin. The studies about disgust sensitivity, for instance, involved samples of <a href="http://static.squarespace.com/static/4ff4905c84aee104c1f4f2c2/t/5084d6d0c4aa1a31c6539c1a/1350883024160/Inbar%20Pizarro%20Knobe%20Bloom%202008.pdf">44 and 82 college students</a>, and they covered scenarios such as public French kissing and pictures of same-sex couples. (One study included “cake topper” wedding figures, but no findings particular to those figures were reported.) You can use such research to analyze the nature of homophobia. But you can’t use it to attribute homophobia to somebody whose reactions to same-sex couples, in contexts other than a wedding or commitment ceremony, haven’t been measured or even described.</p>
<p>In the <em>Atlantic</em> article, Frank <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/how-the-mind-rationalizes-homophobia/283998/">summarized additional research</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Using a process called Implicit Association Tests, Yale’s Paul Bloom and his colleagues documented a gap between how people&nbsp;
<em>say</em>&nbsp;they feel about gays and how they actually feel. Researchers at the Yale Cultural Cognition Project dug deeper, exploring the role of rationalizations against same-sex parenting. Most opponents of gay parenting claimed their position was based on concern for the well-being of children raised by gay couples. But when given convincing evidence that kids with gay parents fare as well as others, very few changed their minds.
</blockquote>
<p>Those findings are illuminating. They show how stubbornly we sometimes cling to stereotypes in the face of contrary evidence. Maybe Huguenin has stereotypes about gay couples. Maybe, after enough experience with them, she’ll surrender those stereotypes.</p>
<p>But maybe the rest of us need to broaden our experience, too. Maybe we need to talk to people who accept homosexuality as an orientation but believe marriage should be reserved for couples capable of procreation, at least in theory. Or maybe we just need to take the self-description of a Christian photographer as seriously as we would take the self-description of a gay friend.</p>Fri, 07 Mar 2014 17:39:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-07T17:39:00ZNews and PoliticsDoes Opposing Gay Marriage Make You A Bigot? No.244140307001gay marriagehomosexualityreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/07/gay_marriage_and_religious_freedom_don_t_stereotype_the_christian_wedding.htmlfalsefalsefalseStereotyping gay people is bad enough. Let’s not stereotype everyone who won’t participate in a gay wedding.Does Opposing Gay Marriage Make You A Bigot? No.Photo by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesA lesbian couple posing for a wedding photograph, Dec. 8, 2013.Gay-Friendly Marriage Discriminationhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/06/gay_friendly_marriage_discrimination.html
<p>This week, 20 Republican officeholders, operatives, and party officials—some past, some present—<a href="http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25273442/prominent-conservatives-file-brief-supporting-gay-marriage">filed</a> a <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/210665769/Conservative-Amicus-Brief-10th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals">legal brief</a> endorsing same-sex marriage. The list of signers includes former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, former Sen. Nancy Kassebaum of Kansas, and former Gov. Gary Johnson of New Mexico. This isn’t just another brief for gay rights, freedom, or “marriage equality.” It reaffirms some fairly conservative ideas. Can liberals accept these ideas? Let’s take a look at the top three.</p>
<p><strong>1. Marriage is better than cohabitation.</strong> The brief quotes a <a href="http://nationalmarriageproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Union_11_12_10.pdf">2010 report</a> from the National Marriage Project:</p>
<blockquote>
Children who grow up with cohabiting couples tend to have more negative life outcomes compared to those growing up with married couples. Prominent reasons are that cohabiting couples have a much higher breakup rate than do married couples, a lower level of household income, and a higher level of child abuse and domestic violence.
</blockquote>
<p>It’s one thing to say that everyone has a right to marry. It’s another thing to suggest that people who could marry, but who choose instead to cohabit, are raising their kids in a setting that is, on average, less healthy. I’m OK with this statement, because statistically, it’s true. Are you OK with it?</p>
<p><strong>2. The government has an economic interest in promoting marriage.</strong> “Marriage is the foundation of the secure families that form the building blocks of our communities,” says the brief. In this way, marriage “reduces the need for&nbsp;reliance on the State.” The brief quotes a law review article co-authored by John Yoo, the former Bush administration official who defended waterboarding:</p>
<blockquote>
If the government believes that marriage has positive benefits for society, some or all of those benefits may attach to same-sex marriages as well.&nbsp;Stable&nbsp;relationships may produce&nbsp;more personal income and less demands on welfare and unemployment programs; it may create the best conditions for the rearing of children; and it may encourage individuals to invest and save for the&nbsp;future.
</blockquote>
<p>By asserting these collective interests, the brief reinforce the premise that the government has valid grounds to steer people toward marriage. The tax code, for instance, can legitimately discriminate between married and cohabiting couples. Are you OK with that?</p>
<p><strong>3. Marriage is an exclusive, lifelong commitment.</strong> The brief says family-related public policies “should promote … responsibility, fidelity, commitment, and stability.” Specifically, it argues, “Extending&nbsp;civil marriage to same-sex couples is a clear endorsement of the multiple benefits of marriage—including stability, lifetime commitment, and financial support during crisis and old age.” It quotes a court’s reasoning that married same-sex couples will set the same “example that married opposite-sex couples set for their unmarried counterparts”—namely, “the formation of committed, exclusive relationships.”</p>
<p><em>Lifetime commitment</em>. <em>Exclusive relationships</em>. Those aren’t idle words. They nail you down. The definition of marriage is expanding to include same-sex couples, but it’s not expanding to include temporary or non-exclusive arrangements. You can still make such arrangements, of course, and you can have affairs or trysts in your marriage. But you’re not changing the definition of marriage. You’re just violating it.</p>
<p>For conservatives, these principles make gay marriage easier to accept. They show that it’s possible to accept same-sex couples without accepting polygamy, casual divorce, or other changes to our understanding of marriage. But for liberals, they’re a challenge. Do you support gay marriage because you oppose all discrimination among couples and families? Or do you agree that the government can and should discriminate, as long as it isn’t based on sexual orientation?</p>Thu, 06 Mar 2014 18:20:36 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/06/gay_friendly_marriage_discrimination.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-06T18:20:36ZNews and PoliticsCan You Accept Gay Marriage While Discriminating Against Cohabitation? These Republicans Say Yes.244140306001gay marriageWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/06/gay_friendly_marriage_discrimination.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe gay-friendly case for marriage discrimination.Can You Accept Gay Marriage While Discriminating Against Cohabitation? These Republicans Say Yes.Photo by Bill Pugliano/Getty ImagesGay marriage supporters demonstrate at a federal courthouse in Detroit on March 3, 2014.Morphing the Muslimhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/05/how_the_muslim_taxi_driver_became_a_bogeyman_in_arizona_s_religious_freedom.html
<p>Last week, I wrote about <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/27/arizona_s_antigay_bill_did_warnings_about_muslim_religious_freedom_help.html">the use of Muslims as bogeymen</a> in the campaign against Arizona’s religious freedom bill. The bill would have shielded businesses from discrimination suits, as long as they were acting on religious beliefs. Everyone understood that the bill would have allowed conservative Christians to refuse services for a gay wedding. But politically, that wasn’t a strong enough argument against it. So opponents raised a different scenario: A Muslim proprietor—typically, a taxi driver—might refuse services to a woman or to a person of a different religion.</p>
<p>Chronologically, the first reference I could find to Muslims in the Arizona fight came from the Anti-Defamation League. I linked to the ADL’s <a href="http://arizona.adl.org/news/adl-disappointed-by-state-senate-committees-passage-of-so-called-religious-freedom-bill-jeopardizing-arizonians-welfare/">press release about its Jan. 16 letter to state senators</a>, as well as to a <a href="http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&amp;clip_id=13105">committee hearing</a> in which Tracey Stewart, the ADL’s assistant regional director, read from the letter. I quoted Stewart’s testimony (taken verbatim from the letter) that if the bill were to pass, “A Muslim-owned cab company might refuse to drive passengers to a Hindu temple.”</p>
<p>The day after my article appeared, the Arizona chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations <a href="http://cair.com/press-center/press-releases/12390-cair-az-condemns-adl-stereotyping-of-muslims-in-bill-1062-debate.html">demanded an apology</a> from the ADL. A CAIR official <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/news/2014/03/01/sb-1062-aftermath-muslim-group-cair.html">alleged</a>: &quot;The introduction of this stereotypical scenario gave way to the narrative that Muslims are in some way serial abusers of 'religious freedom based denials of service,' which is completely baseless.&quot;</p>
<p>Technically, the elements of this charge are correct. The scenario was stereotypical. It did give way to an anti-Muslim narrative. And, as far as I can tell, the scenario was introduced by the ADL’s letter and testimony. But the demand for an apology is unwarranted, in my view, because the ADL didn’t put these three elements together. They came together over the course of the Arizona fight, through the intercession of other players.</p>
<p>Many of the innovative messages that change politics—the idea that gay marriage is pro-family, for instance, or that mass surveillance by the National Security Agency represents liberal big government—aren’t the work of a single strategist. They’re the product of multiple actors sequentially modifying an idea. In the case of abortion, I wrote <a href="http://www.bearingright.com">a whole book about how this happens</a>. The idea of personal freedom, which liberals loved, was gradually transformed by strategists and politicians into a message that resonated with conservative voters: the idea that the government should stay out of the family. That transformation came with policy concessions: parental notice and consent laws for minors, and severe restrictions on public funding of abortions.</p>
<p>Something like that seems to have happened in Arizona. The initial reference to Muslims, in the ADL’s Jan. 16 letter, was relatively benign. The ADL <a href="http://americablog.com/2014/02/arizona-passes-citizens-united-type-law-protecting-corporations-religious-beliefs.html">listed several scenarios</a> that could arise under the bill:</p>
<blockquote>
An employer could raise SB 1062 as defense to an employee’s equal pay claim … arguing that his or her religious beliefs require that men be paid more than women.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The legislation could be used as defense to paying statutorily accrued interest on liens or other amount owed to individuals or private entities based on a religious objection to paying interest.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A secular corporation with religious owners could refuse to hire someone from a different religion, so as to avoid paying a salary that might be used for a purpose that is offensive to the owners’ religious views.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A Christian-owned hotel chain might refuse to rent rooms to those who would use the space to study the Koran or Talmud.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
A Muslim-owned cab company might refuse to drive passengers to a Hindu temple.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a pretty long list. The Muslim scenario came last. The hypothetical target of discrimination was Hindu, not Christian. And that scenario was preceded by one in which a Christian discriminated against Muslims. For these reasons, I think it’s unfair to accuse the ADL of pushing a Muslim stereotype. I wish I had quoted more of the letter to make this clear. I linked to the <a href="http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&amp;clip_id=13105">hearing video</a> in which the letter was read aloud (skip to minute 46), but in retrospect, that wasn’t enough. I’m posting the whole letter <a href="http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/saletan/2014/03/140303_ADL_letter.pdf">here</a> as a PDF, so you can read the full context for yourself.</p>
<p>What happened in Arizona, evidently, is that as other players picked up the Muslim scenario, they removed these mitigating factors. They sharpened it for political effect. The <em>Arizona Republic</em>, in its <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20140221gov-brewer-veto-those-religious-freedom-bills.html">Feb. 20 editorial</a> against the bill, made the Muslim taxi driver its opening example and changed the driver’s hypothetical victims from Hindus to women. Phoenix news station KTAR did the same in its <a href="http://ktar.com/22/1705258/Scottsdale-lawyer-Service-refusal-bill-bad-for-Arizona-taxpayers">Feb. 23 report</a> on criticisms of the bill. CBS News changed the victims in the scenario to <a href="http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/asu-law-prof-sb1062-means-almost-nothing/">Jews</a>. Other media outlets changed them to <a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2014/02/22/62692">Christians</a>.</p>
<p>Even after the governor vetoed the bill, the scenario continued to spread and morph. Opinion writers condemned the bill as “Sharia Law” and “<a href="http://www.noozhawk.com/article/randy_alcorn_christian_muslim_theocracy_20140302">Muslim Theocracy</a>.” They claimed, as a blanket statement, that <a href="http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20140301/OPINION02/303010008">in Islam, religious law trumps civil law</a>. Letters to the editor fretted about “<a href="http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2014/02/your_comments_on_arizonas_religious_freedom_bill_sorry_this_just_smells_like_bigotry_to_me.html">a Muslim refusing to do business with a woman who drives</a><em>.</em>” In some accounts, the taxi driver was replaced by a Muslim barber who &quot;<a href="http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/02/muslim-barber-refuses-cut-hair-lesbian-whose-rights-trump-whose/">follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties</a>.” These warnings gave conservatives pause. One right-wing website lamented:&nbsp; “<a href="http://www.barenakedislam.com/2014/03/02/arizona-gay-issues-didnt-kill-the-religious-rights-legislation-muslim-issues-did/">Unfortunately, Christian religious rights must suffer in order to stop Muslims from imposing theirs</a>.<strong>”</strong></p>
<p>You might find this exploitation of Islamophobia disgusting. You might find it clever. You might conclude that it’s both. Was the political payoff worth the social damage? I’ll leave that question to you. Either way, it’s important to understand that the dissemination and transformation of the taxi driver scenario, like other tropes and characters, is a collective, incremental process. The blame, like the credit, must be shared.</p>Wed, 05 Mar 2014 16:03:33 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/05/how_the_muslim_taxi_driver_became_a_bogeyman_in_arizona_s_religious_freedom.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-05T16:03:33ZNews and PoliticsHow the Muslim Taxi Driver Became a Bogeyman244140305001muslimsreligious freedomWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/05/how_the_muslim_taxi_driver_became_a_bogeyman_in_arizona_s_religious_freedom.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe Council on American-Islamic Relations accuses the Anti-Defamation League of exploiting Muslim stereotypes. Is that true?How the Muslim Taxi Driver Became a BogeymanPhoto by Massoud Hossaini/AFP/Getty ImagesAn Afghan taxi driver in 2010.How to Control Obamahttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/04/obama_s_foreign_policy_realism_if_russia_iran_and_syria_can_push_him_around.html
<p>In one important respect, President Obama is a foreign-policy realist. Unlike his predecessor, he makes decisions based on what he thinks is possible or likely, given what other countries and their leaders will tolerate. In general, that’s smart. But it makes him vulnerable to manipulation. To control his calculus, all you have to do is convince him of your intolerance. The most implacable regime gets its way.</p>
<p>That’s what seems to be going on in the Middle East. A few days ago, Obama gave Jeff Goldberg of Bloomberg View an hourlong interview on this subject. The <a href="http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out">transcript</a>, published Sunday, shows how Obama thinks, and how to influence him.</p>
<p>Goldberg asked Obama about Secretary of State John Kerry’s recent warning that if the latest round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks doesn’t succeed, “<a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2013/06/210236.htm">we may not get another chance</a>.” Goldberg noted that Kerry “has also suggested strongly that there might be a third intifada down the road and that if this peace process doesn’t work, Israel itself could be facing international isolation and boycott.”</p>
<p>Obama affirmed Kerry’s warning. He argued that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas</p>
<blockquote>
has proven himself to be somebody who has been committed to nonviolence and diplomatic efforts to resolve this issue. We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like. … President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle East generally. For us not to seize that opportunity would be a mistake.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the hostility of Israel’s neighbors and their propensity to violence give them clout in Obama’s calculus. He also factors in the European movement toward sanctions against Israel:</p>
<blockquote>
Israel has become more isolated internationally. We had to stand up in the Security Council in ways that 20 years ago would have involved far more European support, far more support from other parts of the world when it comes to Israel’s position.
</blockquote>
<p>One exchange, involving the United Nations and the European Union, went this way:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Obama:</strong> If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction … if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Goldberg:</strong>&nbsp;Willingness, or ability?
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Obama:</strong>&nbsp;Not necessarily willingness, but ability to manage international fallout is going to be limited.
</blockquote>
<p>Goldberg’s question and Obama’s response here are illuminating. For Obama, unlike George W. Bush, willingness and ability are closely related. If Europe turns against Israel, Obama will still defend Israel, in part because, as he explained to Goldberg, Israel’s “bipartisan support” in the U.S. means “it is not realistic … that the core commitments we have with Israel change during the remainder of my administration or the next administration.” But when this domestic reality comes up against the international reality of European resistance, Obama isn’t going to try too hard. That’s how the word “necessarily” slipped into his response: When Obama feels less able to do something, he becomes less willing.</p>
<p>When Goldberg asked about the idea of tightening sanctions on Iran in order to increase pressure in nuclear talks, Obama showed the same deference to the will of others:</p>
<blockquote>
The notion that in the midst of negotiations we would then improve our position by saying, “We’re going to squeeze you even harder,” ignores the fact that [President Hassan] Rouhani and the negotiators in Iran have their own politics. They’ve got to respond to their own hardliners.
</blockquote>
<p>Likewise, in Syria, Obama downplayed the possibility of defeating “a professional army that is well-armed and sponsored by two large states [Iran and Russia] who have huge stakes in this.” From a U.S. perspective, he cautioned, “we have to make sure that what we do does not make a situation worse or engulf us in yet another massive enterprise at a time when we have great demands here at home and a lot of international obligations abroad.”</p>
<p>In short, we’re going to let Iran and Russia have their way in Syria because they want it more than we do. The same goes, apparently, for the invasion of Ukraine.</p>
<p>What’s odd about Obama’s realism is that he seems to expect different behavior from Israel. He portrays Israel’s West Bank settlements as a threat to peace because they antagonize Palestinians and Europeans. But why should Israel retreat from antagonism, when antagonism is what earns Obama’s respect?</p>
<p>Yesterday, shortly after the interview was published, Obama sat down with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House. Netanyahu told reporters he would “<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/03/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-netanyahu-bilateral-meeting">stand strong against criticism, against pressure</a>.” That rule, the prime minister explained, was something “we’ve learned from our history.” He’s also learned it, no doubt, from watching Obama.</p>Tue, 04 Mar 2014 15:45:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/04/obama_s_foreign_policy_realism_if_russia_iran_and_syria_can_push_him_around.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-04T15:45:00ZNews and PoliticsObama Yields to the Will of Others. So Why Shouldn’t Israel Push Him Around?244140304001israeliranmiddle eastsyriaWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/04/obama_s_foreign_policy_realism_if_russia_iran_and_syria_can_push_him_around.htmlfalsefalsefalseIn foreign policy, Obama yields to the will of others. So why shouldn't Israel push him around?Obama Yields to the Will of Others. So Why Shouldn’t Israel Push Him Around?Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Obama with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House on July 6, 2010.Is Kerry Right About Ukraine?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/03/kerry_russia_and_the_ukraine_invasion_let_s_hear_it_for_nuance_and_diplomacy.html
<p>I was against John Kerry before I was for him.</p>
<p>When Kerry was a senator and presidential candidate, I made fun of him for qualifying every statement. We ran a series in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> called “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kerryisms.html">Kerryisms</a>,” where we reprinted his prepositional phrases as footnotes, so you could see all the fine print. His most famous caveat was, &quot;<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esUTn6L0UDU">I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it</a>.&quot;</p>
<p>George W. Bush had fun with Kerry, too. He joked about the senator’s <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2004/aug/11/nation/na-bush11">fetish for “nuance</a>.”</p>
<p>But sometimes, nuance is just what you need. The invasion of Ukraine—is it really an invasion?—might be one of those times.</p>
<p>Hawks have a straightforward view of the Ukraine crisis. Rep. Adam Kinzinger, R-Ill., a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, distilled it yesterday on <em><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-transcript-john-kerry/story?id=22720806">This Week</a></em>. “The reset with Russia is over,” he said. “We're going to make it clear that Russia is a pariah state, and not just for the next year, but for the next decade or two.”</p>
<p>Kerry, now the secretary of state, refused to be so decisive. He told George Stephanopoulos:</p>
<blockquote>
We don’t want this to be a larger confrontation. … What we want is for Russia to work with us, with Ukraine. If they have legitimate concerns, George, about Russian-speaking people in Ukraine, there are plenty of ways to deal with that without invading the country. They have the ability to work with the government. They could work with us. They could work with the U.N. They could call for observers to be put in the country.
</blockquote>
<p>Stephanopoulos pressed Kerry for a clear judgment and a clear penalty. He asked the secretary, “But the invasion has already happened, Sir, hasn’t it?” At this, Kerry drew one of his maddening distinctions:</p>
<blockquote>
The invasion of
<em>Crimea</em> has already happened. That’s absolutely accurate. And we believe that President Putin should make the decision to roll it back, and we will continue to press for that, as well as for his legitimate engagement with the current government of Ukraine in order to avoid further increase in the tension in the Crimea.
</blockquote>
<p>Kerry went on to offer concessions:</p>
<blockquote>
We understand that Russia has interests in Crimea. The Ukraine government is prepared to respect the base agreement. Nobody threatened those Russia interests. And we are prepared to stand up against any hooligans, any thuggery, any individual efforts with Russians, in order to create stability in Ukraine and allow the people of Ukraine to make their choices for the future. … This is a time for diplomacy, and we will engage diplomatically as much as we can in order to steer this away from the increase in the tension of the level of the crisis. Nobody wants this to spiral into a bad or worse direction.
</blockquote>
<p>The disciplinarian in me—the guy who endorsed the invasion of Iraq—finds this mealy-mouthed obsequiousness exasperating. It seems there’s no limit to the world’s tolerance for appeasement. But when I read about <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/03/02/ukraine_mobilizes_for_war_prime_minister_arseny_yatseniuk_says_country_is.html">what’s actually going on</a> in Ukraine (including these useful pieces by <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_world_/2014/02/28/a_ukraine_crimea_faq_roundup_here_s_what_you_need_to_know_about_the_crisis.html">Josh Keating</a> and <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/03/vladimir_putin_s_war_on_ukraine_president_obama_had_no_options_for_saving.html">Fred Kaplan</a>), I see merit in Kerry’s delicacy. So far, it <em>is</em> an invasion of Crimea, not the whole country. Crimea <em>is</em> different, with stronger Russian claims and interests. Russia <em>has</em> limited its aggression, by avoiding bloodshed and using uniforms without badges.</p>
<p>If this were a home invasion, and you were a cop arriving on the scene, it would matter a great deal to you whether the perpetrator had harmed anyone in the house. If he hadn’t, you would take that as a sign that he might not want violence. You would emphasize to him that he hadn’t yet crossed that line. You would encourage him to put down his weapons and come out.</p>
<p>At this point, Kerry is right. We still have the time, space, and flexibility to steer this away from becoming much worse. On <em><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-march-2-2014-kerry-hagel/">Face the Nation</a></em>, Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution observed:</p>
<blockquote>
As bad as what Putin, you know, has been doing may be, he hasn't killed people. And I think he's trying to show force in a way that gets a specific task done: He wants his base … On top of that, we do have a pretty strong set of potential economic sanctions … So if this really escalates to a very bad kind of thing—which it hasn't yet—but if it got into civil warfare and an invasion by Russia to back up one side in Ukraine, then I think these kinds of tools would be applied, and they'd be applied effectively, and Putin knows it. So I'm relatively confident he won't go there.
</blockquote>
<p>More broadly, Kerry is right about the complexity of Russia’s behavior around the world. On <a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-march-2-2014-n42471"><em>Meet the Press</em></a>, he cautioned,</p>
<blockquote>
I don't think this is a moment to be proclaiming one thing or the other. We've had difficulties with Russia with respect to certain issues. And even as we've had—we've managed to do the START treaty. They've cooperated on Afghanistan. They've cooperated on Iran. So this is not a zero-sum, dead/alive. It's a question of differences, very profound differences on certain issues and certain approaches.
</blockquote>
<p>Infuriating as Putin is, and disgusted as I am at yet another Russian invasion, I have to acknowledge the truth of Kerry’s words. Hitting the off switch on U.S.-Russian relations would be as rash as hitting the reset button. What we need now is a precise understanding of what Putin has done, what he hasn’t done, and how he can be steered in the right direction. Kerry might be the guy for this job.</p>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:51:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/03/kerry_russia_and_the_ukraine_invasion_let_s_hear_it_for_nuance_and_diplomacy.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-03-03T15:51:00ZNews and PoliticsJohn Kerry Is an Infuriating Hair-Splitter. He Might Be Just the Right Guy to Deal With Ukraine.244140303001john kerryukraineWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/03/kerry_russia_and_the_ukraine_invasion_let_s_hear_it_for_nuance_and_diplomacy.htmlfalsefalsefalseJohn Kerry is an infuriating hair-splitter. In short, just the right guy to deal with Ukraine.John Kerry Is an Infuriating Hair-Splitter. He Might Be Just the Right Guy to Deal With Ukraine.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesJohn Kerry. On the one hand ... on the other hand.Mobile Phones Are Moving Targetshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/28/driving_while_texting_mobile_phone_technology_is_making_laws_against_phone.html
<p>Two years ago, when he was stuck in traffic, Peter Spriggs of Fresno, Calif., pulled out his iPhone to look for an alternative route. A cop saw him do it and ticketed him for violating Section 23123(a) of the California Vehicle Code, which restricts hand-held use of mobile phones. Spriggs fought the ticket, and yesterday, in the state’s <a href="http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions-slip.htm">5<sup>th</sup> District Court of Appeal</a>, he <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/02/27/3794097/fresno-driver-shouldnt-be-ticketed.html">beat it</a>. The case illustrates how hard it is for laws to keep up with technology.</p>
<p>Here’s the <a href="http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc23123.htm">text of the statute</a> in question:</p>
<blockquote>
A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using a wireless telephone unless that telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.
</blockquote>
<p>In court, the state <a href="http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=5&amp;doc_id=2041763&amp;doc_no=F066927">argued</a> that the statute</p>
<blockquote>
allows ‘using’ a wireless ‘telephone while driving if the telephone is specifically designed and configured to allow hands-free listening and talking, and is used in that manner while driving.’&nbsp; Otherwise, using a wireless telephone while driving is prohibited.
</blockquote>
<p>The court rejected this argument. The statute, it <a href="http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=5&amp;doc_id=2041763&amp;doc_no=F066927">pointed out</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
does not state that [a phone] must be used in a manner that allows for hands-free looking, hands-free operation or hands-free use, or for anything other than listening and talking. Had the Legislature intended to prohibit drivers from holding the telephone and using it for all purposes, it would not have limited the telephone’s required design and configuration to “hands-free listening and talking,” but would have used broader language, such as “hands-free operation” or “hands-free use.”
</blockquote>
<p>That’s pretty convincing. So why didn’t the legislature do that? Why didn’t it address “hands-free operation” in general? In its opinion, the court explained that</p>
<blockquote>
although the Legislature was concerned about the distraction caused by operating a wireless telephone while holding it, the Legislature’s focus was on prohibiting holding the telephone only while carrying on a conversation, not while using it for any other purpose. This is not surprising, given that when the statute was enacted in 2006, most wireless telephones were just that—a telephone—rather than an electronic device with multiple functions.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, laws enacted against mobile phone use in 2006 are hopelessly out of date for dealing with mobile phone use in 2012, much less in 2014. A phone today is wildly different from what a phone was back then. It isn’t even a phone, really. It’s a computer. That’s what Peter Spriggs was doing in his car. He was checking his computer.</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, however, there’s still no law in California that applies to checking a map. If legislators want to ban that, they’d better explain <a href="http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/02/27/3794097/fresno-driver-shouldnt-be-ticketed.html">why it’s OK to hold a paper map</a> but not an electronic one. And they’d better get busy before technology leaves them in the dust again.</p>Fri, 28 Feb 2014 17:13:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/28/driving_while_texting_mobile_phone_technology_is_making_laws_against_phone.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-28T17:13:00ZNews and PoliticsA Driver Beat a Ticket for Using His Map App in Traffic, Because Cellphone Laws Are a Joke244140228001mobile phonesWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/28/driving_while_texting_mobile_phone_technology_is_making_laws_against_phone.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy did a California driver beat a ticket for using his map app in traffic? Because old cell phone laws are a joke.A Driver Beat a Ticket for Using His Map App in Traffic, Because Cellphone Laws Are a JokePhoto by PHILIPPE HUGUEN/AFP/Getty ImagesThis 2014 phone is wildly different from the phones contemplated by California law in 2006.The Muslim Taxi Driverhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/27/arizona_s_antigay_bill_did_warnings_about_muslim_religious_freedom_help.html
<p>If you want to kill legislation that protects the right of Christians to withhold business services from same-sex couples, here’s one way to do it: Don’t warn people about Christians. Warn them about Muslims.</p>
<p>That strategy was on display in the campaign against <a href="http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf">Arizona Senate Bill 1062</a>, which would have shielded businesses from discrimination suits if they acted on religious beliefs. Everyone understood that the bill would have allowed conservative Christians to refuse services for a gay wedding. But in Arizona, that wasn’t a strong enough argument against it. So opponents went for the Muslim angle.</p>
<p>Many Americans who talk about religious freedom are really just interested in the rights of conservative Christians. They’re not so keen on Muslims. In fact, they worry about Muslims imposing their beliefs on Christians. Two days ago, in praise of the Arizona bill, Rush Limbaugh <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/rush-limbaugh-jan-brewer-veto-103925.html">complained</a>, “Religious beliefs can’t be used to stop anything the left wants to impose—unless they’re Muslim religious beliefs, and then we have to honor those. But any other religious beliefs are not permitted.”</p>
<p>The first reference to Muslims in the Arizona fight, as far as I can tell, came from the Anti-Defamation League in a <a href="http://arizona.adl.org/news/adl-disappointed-by-state-senate-committees-passage-of-so-called-religious-freedom-bill-jeopardizing-arizonians-welfare/">letter to state senators</a> and in <a href="http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&amp;clip_id=13105">testimony before a state Senate committee</a> on Jan. 16. If the bill were to pass, the ADL’s assistant regional director told the committee, “A Muslim-owned cab company might refuse to drive passengers to a Hindu temple.”</p>
<p>This week, as lawmakers voted on the bill and Republican Gov. Jan Brewer weighed whether to sign it, the chorus grew. On Feb. 20, the editorial board of the <em>Arizona Republic</em> <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/opinions/articles/20140221gov-brewer-veto-those-religious-freedom-bills.html">warned Brewer</a>, “The proposed law is so poorly crafted it could allow a Muslim taxi driver to refuse service to a woman traveling alone.” On Feb. 21, John Aravosis, the editor of <em>Americablog </em>and a <a href="http://americablog.com/about-us">political consultant</a>, brought up the <a href="http://americablog.com/2014/02/arizona-passes-citizens-united-type-law-protecting-corporations-religious-beliefs.html">Muslim cab driver</a> and other scenarios raised by the ADL. On Feb. 22, <em>Box Turtle Bulletin</em>, a gay rights blog, published a post titled “<a href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2014/02/22/62692">Did the Arizona Legislature Just Legalize Sharia Law?</a>” The post noted that the bill</p>
<blockquote>
exempts anyone from having to follow a whole host of state laws, ordinances and regulations if they conflict with an individual’s religious belief. This would mean that a Muslim landlord could forcibly evict single women or a convert to Christianity, since either action would be covered by Sharia law. It would also allow a Muslim employer to treat his non-Muslim employees with the same rules as his Muslim employees. He could compel non-Muslims to work longer hours at lesser pay and reduced rank.
</blockquote>
<p>On Feb. 23, KTAR, a Phoenix news station, <a href="http://ktar.com/22/1705258/Scottsdale-lawyer-Service-refusal-bill-bad-for-Arizona-taxpayers">devoted a whole story</a> to criticisms of the bill by a Scottsdale attorney. It began:</p>
<blockquote>
If Gov. Jan Brewer signs Senate Bill 1062, the service refusal bill, into law, one Valley attorney is afraid Arizona could face several legal challenges. &quot;For example, a taxi cab driver who may be Muslim may refuse to give service to a woman who may be traveling without a male companion, in violation of their religious law” …
</blockquote>
<p>On Feb. 24, <em>USA Today</em> columnist Owen Ullman <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/24/voices-column-on-arizona-anti-gay-bill/5775081/">asked</a>, “if religious beliefs are a justification for refusing gay couples, shouldn't Arizona extend the principle to all religious beliefs? Devout Muslims should have the right to refuse service to women who are not covered in burqas.” On Feb. 25, fellow columnist Kirsten Powers, a former <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/personalities/kirsten-powers/bio/">communications consultant</a>, <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/02/25/arizona-right-refuse-gay-religious-freedom-homosexuality-column/5817555/">added</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Say the only pharmacy in town is owned by a conservative Muslim. He believes that women should be covered. A mother comes in to get antibiotics for her sick child. He refuses service unless she covers herself. Will the religious right defend this? …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
What if an Army sergeant in full regalia is driving through a small town and his car breaks down and it's too late to find a mechanic? There are two hotels in the town; both are owned by pacifist Christians. Do the backers of this bill really believe it should be legal for him to be refused a room and forced to sleep in his car?”
</blockquote>
<p>I can’t prove that all this Muslim talk influenced Brewer’s decision to <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140226arizona-jan-brewer-1062-statement.html">veto the bill</a> last night. But it definitely caused trouble. During the state Senate debate on Feb. 20, the bill’s sponsor struggled with the Muslim taxi driver question. (Skip to minute 1:22 of the <a href="http://azleg.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=13&amp;clip_id=13501">video</a>.) On Feb. 25 the state’s Capitol Media Services <a href="http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2014/02/25/asu-law-prof-sb1062-means-almost-nothing/">raised the taxi driver scenario</a> in an <a href="http://azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/a-legal-analysis-of-sb/article_94175e74-9eb7-11e3-836a-001a4bcf887a.html">analysis of the bill’s legal ramifications</a>. On Feb. 26, CBS News asked the president of the <a href="http://www.azpolicy.org/">Center for Arizona Policy</a>, which <a href="http://www.azpolicy.org/bill-tracker/religious-freedom-restoration-act-sb-1062">helped craft the bill</a>, whether it would “<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/proponents-say-controversial-arizona-bill-protects-all-religious-freedom/">protect a Muslim wedding photographer who does not want to photograph a Jewish wedding</a>.” She said it would.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s an accident that some of the folks who played the Muslim card were political professionals, or that they threw in the Army sergeant scenario for good measure. When you’re trying to get lawmakers and a governor in a conservative state to kill a religious freedom bill, pleading for gay people or fretting about Christian overreach may not cut it. It might even backfire. If you can find some other scenario to talk about—preferably one in which Christians or soldiers pay the price for a minority’s religious freedom—you’re more likely to give the majority pause. It’s an ugly game. But that’s how you play it.</p>Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:52:08 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/27/arizona_s_antigay_bill_did_warnings_about_muslim_religious_freedom_help.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-27T19:52:08ZNews and PoliticsTo Kill a Religious Freedom Bill, Don’t Warn People About Christians. Warn Them About Muslims.244140227001religious freedomhomosexualitymuslimsWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/27/arizona_s_antigay_bill_did_warnings_about_muslim_religious_freedom_help.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf you want to kill a religious freedom bill, don’t warn people about Christians. Warn them about Muslims.To Kill a Religious Freedom Bill, Don’t Warn People About Christians. Warn Them About Muslims.Photo by Khaled Desouki/AFP/Getty ImagesA taxi driver for female passengers only, in Cairo on March 6, 2010.Can Creationists Be Scientists? Readers Respond.http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/26/creationist_scientists_examples_of_religious_believers_who_practice_good.html
<p>This month, I’ve written a few posts <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/06/creationism_science_and_religion_can_a_nasa_scientist_believe_in_the_resurrection.html">defending the idea</a> that you can <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">believe in young-Earth creationism</a>—a complete fiction—and <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.html">still practice good science</a>. Most readers who responded to these articles disagreed. I’ve read more than a thousand of your comments, looking for insights that can help us think more clearly about this question. Some of what you’ve written requires me to amend or clarify what I’ve said. Some of it, however, should prompt reflection among those of you who say science and creationism are incompatible.</p>
<p>Here are some of the best <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.html">reader comments</a>. I’ll start with the ones that made me rethink my own position.</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>SirWired:</strong> Biblical literalism doesn't make you inherently a poor engineer, or a poor scientist (as long as your field does not intersect the bible in any way), but it certainly makes your critical thinking skills suspect.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Alcibiades232:</strong> you can't be the best thinker/discoverer you can be AND believe in nonsense. You can be an athlete and be fat at the same time, too. It's like that.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Lon:</strong> religion can be compartmentalized because many religions do not think that religion makes scientific claims.&nbsp;By contrast, Creationism is a scientific claim.&nbsp;… [B]elieving that Jesus dies and was miraculously resurrected on the cross, is not a scientific belief, and believing it does not do damage to science, or require an ignorance of science.
</blockquote>
<p>I agree with the first two comments here. Insisting on biblical literalism in the face of contrary evidence does impair that part of your mind, and it does make me worry about your ability to confine the impairment. But I’m open to persuasion based on your job performance.</p>
<p>I also like Lon’s distinction between singular religious claims, such as the resurrection of Jesus, and global religious claims, such as biblical accounts of the origin of species. It’s much easier to compartmentalize the former than the latter. This makes <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/06/creationism_science_and_religion_can_a_nasa_scientist_believe_in_the_resurrection.html">Jennifer Wiseman</a> a far more credible scientist than <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">Ken Ham</a>.</p>
<p>But the comments section also includes reports of <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.html">real, live creationists who practice science</a>. Here are some of those reports:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>G. Dannek:</strong>
<strong></strong>I've known many excellent scientists who are religious, a subset of whom are honest-to-god young earth creationists. They're a very small minority in the sciences, to be sure, but they exist, and the ones I've known have been productive, careful, effective researchers. People can handle it in all sorts of ways; by avoiding thinking about the conflict, by assuming there's some sort of atheist conspiracy to overstate the evidence for the age of the earth and never examining that assumption, etc. You just wall off your implausible beliefs from your critical thinking faculties, and as long as they don't overlap your field of study, the beliefs about origins and the critical thinking about everything else continue functioning just fine.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>antithetical scientist</strong>: one of the brightest scientists i ever met was a happy-go-lucky christian who believed in creationism. that &quot;dummy&quot; has moved the field of genetics farther than most of these slate posters could ever dream.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>dallasd: </strong>I did once meet an astronomer who was a young earth creationist. But she compartmentalized. The Big bang theory was true when she was at work, but at home she was a creationist.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>LaFollette Progressive: </strong>I once worked in a chemistry lab with a PhD candidate who was both a fervent creationist and a perfectly good researcher (in a field with absolutely zero relevance to cosmology or evolution). He also seemed to think Rush Limbaugh was an eminent sociologist and an expert on climatology, which demonstrates more clearly the inherent flaw in the compartmentalized practice of science—people with ANY ideological commitments that run deeper than the desire to uncover the truth about the natural world are inherently compromised as scientific researchers. … That said, as long as the subject in question was completely untainted by religion or politics, this person was an insightful and diligent researcher. Compartmentalization can work quite well until it doesn't.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Pax:</strong> I do know some brilliant scientists who are very religious. You can literally hear their brain shut down the logic centers when it comes to religious discussions...
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Alath In: </strong>The guy who invented enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (the ELISA tests most commonly known as urine pregnancy tests, but used in medicine for many other indications) is also a climate change denier. I know an interventional radiologist who is brilliant and widely published in her field, while at the same time believing that rape is impossible because, she says, a woman who doesn't want to have sex can simply close the sphincter muscle around her vagina. The rationality and deference to evidence that all good scientists have in their own field of expertise does not always—in my experience, hardly ever—pervades into fields outside their expertise.
</blockquote>
<p>Some of these accounts trouble me. They remind me that the will to reject evidence is a defect, and one can never be sure how far that defect might extend. But they also show (as do <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/CMI_list_of_scientists_alive_today_who_accept_the_biblical_account_of_creation">other cases</a>) that it’s possible to practice good science while espousing creationism or other myths. In the face of these stories, how can you deny that what these people have done is possible? How can you insist that creationist beliefs are incompatible with science, without rejecting evidence yourself?</p>Wed, 26 Feb 2014 22:19:03 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/26/creationist_scientists_examples_of_religious_believers_who_practice_good.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-26T22:19:03ZNews and PoliticsIf Creationists Can’t Be Scientists, How Do You Explain These Stories From
<strong><em>Slate</em></strong> Readers?244140226001creationismevolutionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/26/creationist_scientists_examples_of_religious_believers_who_practice_good.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf you think creationists can’t be scientists, good luck explaining these stories from Slate readers.If Creationists Can’t Be Scientists, How Do You Explain These Stories From <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> Readers?Photo by ANNE-CHRISTINE POUJOULAT/AFP/Getty ImagesA scientist at work in France, Oct. 24, 2013.The Afterlife of “After-Birth Abortion”http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/25/_after_birth_abortion_how_right_wing_web_sites_turned_my_old_article_into.html
<p><em>Have you heard the news? There’s a movement afoot to legalize infanticide. They’re calling it “after-birth abortion.” Those disgusting liberals! We'll remember in November.</em></p>
<p>I was surprised to see comments like these flying around the Internet this week. I’m the guy who wrote the article they’re talking about. It’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2012/03/after_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html">two years old</a>. Now the right-wing echo-sphere is passing the story around as though it’s new. People think “after-birth abortion” is a real thing or a policy proposal. They don’t even read carefully enough to notice that I was criticizing it. I’m getting tweets and comments depicting me as a baby killer.</p>
<p>This is the Internet echo chamber at its worst. How does it happen?</p>
<p>Here’s the rough story. Two years ago in the&nbsp;<em><a href="http://jme.bmj.com/">Journal of Medical Ethics</a></em>, a couple of philosophers outlined a case for infanticide. They called it “<a href="http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full">after-birth abortion</a>.” I explained their argument and challenged pro-choicers to explain how lines could be drawn against such an extension of abortion rights.</p>
<p>In the months that followed, every so often, somebody would bring up my article and puke at it. The latest round started with <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Farticles%2Fhealth_and_science%2Fhuman_nature%2F2012%2F03%2Fafter_birth_abortion_the_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html">a few tweets this weekend</a>. This time, <a href="https://twitter.com/VonCsefalvay/status/437587864524578816">the word spread</a>. A <a href="https://twitter.com/michelelfrost/status/437589895448903680">couple</a> of influential conservative activists <a href="https://twitter.com/kesgardner/status/437590640897974272">tweeted it</a>. On Sunday morning, it started to show up in the blogs of conservative writers who directly or indirectly follow them: <a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/up-with-infanticide-after-birth-abortion/">Rod Dreher</a> at the <em>American Conservative</em>, <a href="http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2014/02/saletan-on-after-birth-abortion.html">Robert George</a> at <em>Mirror of Justice</em>, and later, <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371826/after-birth-abortion-aka-infanticide-ramesh-ponnuru">Ramesh Ponnuru</a> at <em>National Review</em>.</p>
<p>Full disclosure: I love these guys. Every Friday night, we get together to eat fish, play poker, and subvert reproductive freedom. They tell me Jesus stories and try to entice me to the dark side. But I have a hang-up: I can’t get past the feeling that pregnancy is one person growing inside another and that every part of that conundrum—<em>one person</em>, <em>growing</em>, <em>another person</em>—has to be taken into account. And I’m a sucker for context. So I cling to the mushy, unprincipled belief that while there ought to be fewer abortion decisions—and there would be, if pro-lifers would magically redirect their energy from abortion bans to birth control—when those decisions arise, they’re best made by the people directly involved.</p>
<p>The blog posts said nice things about me (for that, I’m bringing the wine and crackers next Friday), but they made “after-birth abortion” look like a new thing. “Saletan reports on two philosophers,” said Dreher. “Saletan is wrestling with himself,” said George. “Saletan … notices that two philosophers are advocating what they call ‘after-birth abortion,’” said Ponnuru. All of this in the present tense, two years later.<br /> </p>
<p>On Sunday night, Brit Hume saw the story. He tweeted the <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> URL with this message: “<a href="https://twitter.com/brithume/status/437764552890265600">There are now people seriously arguing for abortion AFTER BIRTH</a>.”</p>
<p>Hume has 237,000 followers. His words—<em>are now</em>—made &nbsp;“after-birth abortion” look like a news story. In fact, the tweet itself became a story. “<a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/02/23/hes-not-kidding-brit-hume-stupefied-by-disgusting-argument-for-after-birth-abortion/">Brit Hume stupefied by disgusting argument for ‘<em>after</em>-birth&nbsp;abortion,’</a>” said Twitchy.com. “<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/fox-news-brit-hume-spotlights-article-on-after-birth-abortion">Fox News’ Brit Hume spotlights article on 'after-birth abortion,’</a>” said Examiner.com.</p>
<p>In 24 hours, the story was everywhere. It was broadcast by <a href="https://twitter.com/cnsnews/status/438045617823047680">CNSNews.com</a>, <a href="http://www.rightwingnews.com/uncategorized/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-excuse-for-infanticide/">rightwingnews.com</a>, and <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2014/02/24/after-birth-abortion-the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide/">Alliance Alert</a>. It permeated <a href="http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2014/02/if-only-hitler-had-known.html">blogs</a> (my favorites were <a href="http://www.gaypatriot.net/2014/02/24/every-child-a-healthy-and-wanted-child/">Gay Patriot</a> and <a href="http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/eugenicsdemography/the-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide/">Ladies Against Feminism</a>) and <a href="http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=11737490">forums</a>, including baby-friendly sites such as <a href="http://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?192444-After-Birth-Abortion-The-pro-choice-case-for-infanticide">okshooters.com</a> and <a href="http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1596154_After_Birth_Abortion_The_pro_choice_case_for_infanticide_.html">ar15.com</a>. People thought a new effort was underway to legalize infanticide. “<a href="http://www.roguevalleyforum.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=16375">The post birth abortion debate has started</a>,” said one thread.</p>
<p>The Internet chatter became a giant game of telephone. I was transformed from an opponent of infanticide to an advocate. “<a href="http://youngcons.com/brit-hume-calls-out-slate-com-for-their-disgusting-argument-for-after-birth-abortion-aka-murder/">Brit Hume calls out Slate.com for their disgusting argument for ‘after-birth abortion’ aka murder</a>,” said youngcons.com. &nbsp;“<a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152269813697464">Liberal defending AFTER ABORTION! SICK!</a>” said a Facebook post. Today, an angry pro-lifer urged his followers to attack me: “<a href="https://twitter.com/mattstat/status/438327958390841344">Here's the great intellect's Twitter handle. Go get 'im!</a>”</p>
<p>This is how the echo chamber works. In places, you can even find admissions of it. Ace of Spades HQ, a popular site for dittoheads, grabbed the “after-birth abortion” story from Twitchy, concluding, “<a href="http://minx.cc/?blog=86&amp;post=347394">This appears to be quite real</a>.” Later, the site posted an update: “Apparently this is a 2012 piece. But Brit Hume just Tweeted about it, hence me (and others) treating it as if it's new.” At <a href="http://forums.hannity.com/forum.php">Sean Hannity’s fan forum</a>, a commenter <a href="http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?2447338-After-birth-Abortion&amp;p=103462879#post103462879">sized up the situation</a>: “So this is probably making the rounds in chainmails and blogposts, and ended up hitting enough resonant frequency to become relevant again.”</p>
<p>Why do we do this? Why do we hype stories like this one, assuming the worst, failing to check the details or even read the article? Because we love to be outraged, and our outrage is useful. “<a href="https://www.facebook.com/tedcruzpage/posts/10152269813697464?comment_id=32467234&amp;offset=0&amp;total_comments=3">#REMEMBER #AMERICA this November</a>,” says a Facebook post responding to the “after-birth abortion” story. “We are ready for November,” says another.</p>
<p>If you think this disease is confined to the right, you’re kidding yourself. Every day, I see it on the left. I see it at <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>. I see it among people who think they’re enlightened and critically astute. We’re reading and writing faster than we can think. When you do that, you’re not using the Internet anymore. It’s using you.</p>Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:30:56 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/25/_after_birth_abortion_how_right_wing_web_sites_turned_my_old_article_into.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-25T21:30:56ZNews and PoliticsHow the Right-Wing Echo Chamber Turned My Old Abortion Article Into a Fake News Story244140225001abortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/25/_after_birth_abortion_how_right_wing_web_sites_turned_my_old_article_into.htmlfalsefalsefalse“After-birth abortion”: How right-wing Web sites turned my old article into a fake news story.How the Right-Wing Echo Chamber Turned My Old Abortion Article Into a Fake News StoryPhoto by Joe Raedle/Getty ImagesAnti-abortion protesters at a hospital in Boston, Mass., Feb. 28, 2006.The Protection of the Churchhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/why_catholic_priests_are_protecting_muslims_in_the_central_african_republic.html
<p>An <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/muslims-seek-refuge-in-c-african-republic-church/2014/02/24/3eb6a928-9d84-11e3-878c-65222df220eb_story.html">intensely moving AP story</a> from Carnot, a city in the Central African Republic:</p>
<blockquote>
The Christian militiamen know hundreds of Muslims are hiding here on the grounds of the Catholic church&nbsp;… The priests here in Carnot have given away all their money to try and keep the anti-Balaka [Christian militia] at bay. There are no aid groups here apart from a clinic operated by Medecins Sans Frontieres, or Doctors Without Borders. The Catholic church, though, is pledging to continue its work here no matter what the personal risk. &quot;For us they are not Muslims or Christians. They are people—people in danger,&quot; says the Rev. Dieu-Seni Bikowo.
</blockquote>
<p>This is what happens in many parts of the world. Even in the midst of religious war, religious institutions provide the moral strength to contain the violence. Faith in transcendent values counters sectarian hatred.</p>
<p>The struggle goes on within each religion:</p>
<blockquote>
Already the fighters known as the anti-Balaka have brought 40 liters (10 gallons) of gasoline and threatened to burn the church to the ground. Even the Rev. Justin Nary, who takes in more Muslims by the day, knows he too is a marked man in the eyes of anti-Balaka. &quot;Walking through town I've had guns pointed in my face four times,&quot; he says. &quot;They call my phone and say they'll kill me once the peacekeepers are gone.&quot;
</blockquote>
<p>The Rev. Bikowo rejects these fighters as representatives of his faith: &quot;The anti-Balaka are not Christians.”</p>
<p>Within the protection of the church—and 30 Cameroonian peacekeepers—the Muslim refugees are free to pray:</p>
<blockquote>
On the grounds of the church, the men kneel on rice sacks pointed toward Mecca and whisper their prayers. [They] laugh when asked if they ever thought they would live at a church. However, they recognize the gravity of the situation that now faces them.” If it weren't for the church and the peacekeepers, we'd all be dead,&quot; says Mahmoud Laminou, who has been here for two weeks.
</blockquote>
<p>This is one reason why, despite the awful history of violence in God’s name, I don’t view religion as an enemy of progress. Religion is the form in which most people learn, express, and pursue their moral aspirations. It connects us to the idea of something higher and better in the world, in others, and in ourselves. You certainly don’t have to be religious to be a good person. But the social force that overcomes bad religion is, quite often, good religion.</p>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 22:57:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/why_catholic_priests_are_protecting_muslims_in_the_central_african_republic.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-24T22:57:00ZNews and PoliticsWho’s Protecting Muslims From Christians in Africa? The Catholic Church.244140224002religionmuslimscatholic churchWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/why_catholic_priests_are_protecting_muslims_in_the_central_african_republic.htmlfalsefalsefalseWho’s protecting Muslims from Christians in central Africa? The Catholic church.Who’s Protecting Muslims From Christians in Africa? The Catholic Church.Photo by ERIC FEFERBERG/AFP/Getty ImagesA priest comforting Muslims who took shelter in his church in the Central African Republic, Jan. 19, 2014.In Defense of Mongrelshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/is_obama_a_mongrel_ted_nugent_s_slur_shows_ignorance_about_inbreeding.html
<p>Last month, Ted Nugent—the former and now off-his rocker—called President Obama a mongrel. Nugent deplored the election of a “<a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/01/21/outdoor-channels-ted-nugent-says-subhuman-mongr/197669">communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured, subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer-gangster Barack Hussein Obama</a>.”</p>
<p>Several Republicans <a href="http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/02/21/top-republicans-condemn-ted-nugents-subhuman-mo/198168">repudiated</a> Nugent’s slur. Sen. Ted Cruz, while stipulating that he wouldn’t say such a thing himself, <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1402/20/nday.06.html">declined to criticize Nugent</a> and praised him as a compelling spokesman for gun rights.</p>
<p>On Friday, five weeks after his rant, Nugent backtracked slightly. While refusing to apologize to Obama, Nugent said he <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/elections/20140221-ted-nugent-issues-partial-apology-for-calling-obama-subhuman-mongrel.ece">shouldn’t have used the word &quot;mongrel</a>.&quot;</p>
<p>You say that like it’s a bad thing.</p>
<p>There are lots of things we can learn from this episode. One is that Nugent is nuts, and it’s not a great idea to attach your party to him, as many Texas Republicans have done. Another is that Cruz is too cowardly to criticize anyone in his base.</p>
<p>I have a different objection: What Nugent said is unfair to mongrels.</p>
<p>A mongrel, according to Merriam-Webster, is “<a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mongrel">an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds or strains</a>.” The Oxford dictionary gives a more precise definition: “<a href="http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/mongrel">a dog of no definable type or breed</a>.” Many people use <em>mongrel</em> as an insult because they think it’s better to be purebred than to have mixed ancestry. They’re wrong. Mixed ancestry is healthier.</p>
<p>Last year in the <em><a href="http://avmajournals.avma.org/loi/javma">Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association</a></em>, researchers at the University of California–Davis published an analysis of <a href="http://avmajournals.avma.org/doi/abs/10.2460/javma.242.11.1549">15 years of electronic records</a> from the UC–Davis veterinary teaching hospital. The review covered more than 90,000 dogs. Of these, more than 27,000 were diagnosed with at least one of 24 genetic disorders examined in the study.</p>
<p>The researchers found that when dogs were matched for age, sex, and weight, 13 of the 24 disorders showed “no significant difference in the mean proportion of purebred and mixed-breed dogs with the disorder.” Of the remaining 11 disorders, 10—including epilepsy, cataracts, hypothyroidism, and dilated cardiomyopathy—“were more prevalent in purebred dogs, compared with those found in mixed-breed dogs.” The only condition more common in mixed-breed dogs—by a margin of about 20 percent, much slimmer than the margins that went the other way—was “ruptured cranial cruciate ligament.”</p>
<p>Why are mutts healthier than purebreds? The prevailing theory is <a href="http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/hybrid-vigour-fact-or-fiction.html">hybrid vigor</a>. Many heritable disorders arise from recessive genes. To get the disease, you have to inherit the bad gene from both parents. That’s more likely when both parents come from the same population.</p>
<p>By mating within a breed, the authors explain, you can suffer a “loss of genetic diversity, thereby increasing the likelihood of recessive disorders within a breed population.” Conversely,</p>
<blockquote>
the random mating practices of mixed-breed dogs have been suggested to increase hybrid vigor (heterosis), resulting in healthier dogs. The increased homozygosity expected in purebred dogs offers the potential for these animals to have traits influenced by recessive alleles in greater frequency than their crossbred counterparts.
</blockquote>
<p>Other studies <a href="http://pedigreedogsexposed.blogspot.com/2011/01/hybrid-vigour-fact-or-fiction.html">largely support</a> this pattern. And the news gets worse for Nugent: The same thing appears to be true in humans.</p>
<p>A year ago, Carl Zimmer, an outstanding science journalist, interviewed Harvard geneticist David Reich for an <a href="http://discovermagazine.com/2013/march/14-interbreeding-neanderthals">article in <em>Discover</em></a>. Reich’s work, Zimmer concluded,</p>
<blockquote>
leaves no doubt that interbreeding was a major feature of human evolution. Billions of people carry sizable chunks of DNA from Neanderthals and other archaic human relatives. Some of those genes may play important roles in our health today.
</blockquote>
<p>For instance:</p>
<blockquote>
In August 2011, Peter Parham of Stanford University and his colleagues found that the Neanderthal and Denisovan versions of some immune system genes are now remarkably widespread. They can be found in Europe, Asia, and even the Pacific islands. Their prevalence suggests that they may have provided some disease-fighting advantage.
</blockquote>
<p>That inference remains tentative. But we’re just beginning to unravel our mixed ancestry:</p>
<blockquote>
“We’ve been mixing quite often with distant relatives in our history,” Reich says. In fact, he expects much more evidence of interbreeding to surface. There may be other, undiscovered humanlike beings lurking in our genomes.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, we’re all subhuman mongrels. And that’s a good thing. Nature favors genetic exchange. We’re the ones who have imposed strict inbreeding. Our fetish for purity, not just in animals but among human races, is, to a considerable extent, an artifact of this perversion.</p>
<p>Be grateful for mongrels, Mr. Nugent. And try to cultivate a healthier level of intellectual cross-fertilization in your own life. Talk to some communists and community organizers. It’s good for you.</p>Mon, 24 Feb 2014 19:07:57 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/is_obama_a_mongrel_ted_nugent_s_slur_shows_ignorance_about_inbreeding.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-24T19:07:57ZNews and PoliticsIs President Obama a Mongrel? You Say That Like It’s a Bad Thing.244140224001racismgeneticsWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/24/is_obama_a_mongrel_ted_nugent_s_slur_shows_ignorance_about_inbreeding.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs President Obama a mongrel? You say that like it’s a bad thing.Is President Obama a Mongrel? You Say That Like It’s a Bad Thing.Photo by Randy Snyder/Getty ImagesTed Nugent at a Republican campaign rally, Oct. 30, 2010.The Myths of Anti-Creationismhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.html
<p>Can you be a good scientist while believing in young-Earth creationism? Two weeks ago, in a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">review of the Creation Museum debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham</a>, I said yes. Sean McElwee disagrees. To espouse creationism, he <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/02/20/why_creationists_cant_be_scientists/">writes in <em>Salon</em></a>, “is to preclude practicing science.”</p>
<p>Who’s right?</p>
<p>Let’s start with where we agree. First, creationism isn’t a scientific theory. It fails basic tests of coherence and hypothesis testing. So it shouldn’t be taught in schools. Second, there are some jobs you can’t do while clinging to creation myths. McElwee gives an example: “Paleontology&nbsp;<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/science/30muse.html?pagewanted=all">is functionally impossible</a>&nbsp;if you accept the disaster-based explanations that creationists offer.”</p>
<p>But as McElwee pushes beyond these statements, his claims become tenuous. “To believe that someone whose starting premise is profoundly unscientific will practice good science could well be dangerous,” he writes. Well, that’s true. It <em>could</em> be, though it’s not clear that most people who believe in creationism—and here I’m talking about the <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/hold-creationist-view-human-origins.aspx">46 percent of Americans</a> who affirm that “<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx">God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so</a>”—actually treat that belief as a starting point. In reality, the vast majority of those people treat creationism as an isolated compartment in which to preserve religion from total obliteration by science.</p>
<p>McElwee says he’s “fearful ... that such an approach to science could easily bleed into the realm of something like vaccines or climate change (<a href="http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-antivaccination-and-antievolution-believers-make-common-cause-20140123,0,6948631.story#axzz2swOZVQXQ">as it already has</a>).” That’s a reasonable worry. But as a hypothesis, it’s unsupported. His link goes to an op-ed that asserts a connection between creationism and vaccine myths but offers no evidence that either belief has affected the other.</p>
<p>Ultimately, McElwee rejects my suggestion that “you can be a perfectly good satellite engineer while believing total nonsense about the origins of life.” He cites <a href="http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-day">Kurt Wise</a>, a former geology student who supposedly abandoned science because he couldn’t square it with biblical literalism. (Wise said he renounced evolution because he was <a href="http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days">unable to hold a Bible together after cutting out all the verses that didn’t square with Darwin</a>. That sounds to me like just another creationist myth, but I’ll play along.) From this story, McElwee concludes that “creationists like Wise have agonizingly determined” that my claim “is not true,” and “we should take them at their word.”</p>
<p>Sorry, but no. I don’t take them at their word. Even if Wise and thousands of others did claim to have abandoned science (actually, they don’t—you can <a href="http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days">read Wise’s account for yourself</a>), I’d want verification. Does Wise agree not to use antibiotics when his doctor explains the evolutionary reason to avoid them? And what about <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">the engineers in Ken Ham’s videos</a>—the guys who made demonstrable contributions to science and technology while declaring themselves young-Earth creationists? Those men are what a good social scientist would call “evidence.” They back up the hypothesis that you can be a perfectly good engineer while believing nonsense about the origins of life. We can’t wave that evidence away, any more than we can wave away fossils.</p>
<p>The alternative hypothesis, advanced by McElwee, is that “to espouse [creationism] is to preclude practicing science.” The engineers in Ham’s video falsify that hypothesis. They espouse creationism while successfully practicing science.</p>
<p>One reason why I don’t share McElwee’s fear of creationism—and I say this as somebody who spent a high school biology class listening to a teacher spell out the case for it—is that I don’t agree that religion has science on the run. Quite the opposite. Mostly this is due to the immense, tangible benefits of science, in the form of technology. But a lot of it is due to the simple power of reality. No matter how hard you work to deceive yourself and others, it’s hard to sustain myths in the face of falsification.</p>
<p>At one point, McElwee quotes Ham:</p>
<blockquote>
As the creation foundation is removed, we see the Godly institutions also start to collapse. On the other hand, as the evolution foundation remains firm, the structures built on that foundation—lawlessness, homosexuality, abortion, etc—logically increase. We must understand this connection.
</blockquote>
<p>McElwee concludes: “This statement shows the operative premise of the young-earth creationist, and from where such creationists draw their power: a literal interpretation of the Bible.”</p>
<p>That’s exactly backward. Read Ham’s statement again. He isn’t saying that you have to oppose homosexuality and abortion because the biblical creation story is true. He’s saying that if you don’t accept the biblical creation story, homosexuality and abortion will follow. In other words, the power of creationism comes from moral anxiety. Biblical literalism, which forces creationists to constantly bang their heads against incompatible evidence, is the burden creationism has to carry.</p>
<p>On the other side, McElwee quotes Charles Darwin: “I have steadily endeavored to keep my mind free so as to give up any hypothesis, however much beloved (and I cannot resist forming one on every subject), as soon as facts are shown to be opposed to it.” That, according to McElwee, is the essence of free inquiry.</p>
<p>He’s right. The image of creationism as an oncoming threat rather than a receding symptom is just another hypothesis. So is the claim that you can’t practice good science while being a creationist. These hypotheses are much beloved among liberals, atheists, and scientists. But the facts are opposed to them. Give them up.</p>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:39:55 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-21T15:39:55ZNews and PoliticsIs Creationism Compatible With Science? The Evidence Says Yes.244140221001creationismevolutionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/21/is_creationism_compatible_with_science_the_evidence_says_yes.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs creationism compatible with science? The evidence says yes.Is Creationism Compatible With Science? The Evidence Says Yes.Photo by Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty ImagesKen Ham, the CEO of Answers in Genesis, may be a dinosaur. But he can still do science.The Paradox of Shark Attackshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/19/why_shark_attacks_have_increased_and_deaths_from_shark_bite_have_declined.html
<p>Over the last century, shark attacks have increased. The death rate from shark attacks, however, has declined. These two trends might be happening for the same reason.</p>
<p>This week the <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/ISAF/ISAF.htm">International Shark Attack File</a> released its <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2013Summary.html">annual report</a> on incidents around the world. The 2013 tally is down from the previous year. Nevertheless, the report emphasizes that</p>
<blockquote>
the number of worldwide unprovoked shark attacks has grown at a steady pace since 1900, with each decade having more attacks than the previous. … [This] most likely reflects the ever-increasing amount of time spent in the sea by humans, which increases the opportunities for interaction between the two affected parties. … As world population continues its upsurge and interest in aquatic recreation concurrently rises, we realistically should expect increases in the number of shark attacks …
</blockquote>
<p>In an <a href="http://news.ufl.edu/2014/02/17/shark-report-2014/">interview with the University of Florida news service</a>, ISAF curator George Burgess explains how economic development has contributed to shark attacks:</p>
<blockquote>
In recent years, Burgess said, globalization, tourism and population growth worldwide have led to shark attacks in historically low-contact areas like Reunion Island, Papua New Guinea, Madagascar, Solomon Island and the small island Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, which in 2013 saw its first recorded shark attack. As more people enter the water in these areas, they become equal opportunity locations for shark-human interaction, he said.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“Globalization of societies and the ease of modern travel means that we have access to places that have never been frequented by tourists before,” Burgess said. “Remote destinations are not typically medically equipped to handle a serious shark attack. This situation is a key factor in the higher death rate this year. When a shark attack happens in a remote place, the results are going to be more dire than if it happened on a Florida beach, for instance.”
</blockquote>
<p>That makes sense. But <em>remote</em> is an unstable characteristic. The more popular a remote destination becomes, the less remote it is. Growth and development don’t just change the likelihood of encountering a shark. They change the likelihood of surviving an attack.</p>
<p>In this regard, the ISAF numbers are striking. Since 2002 <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsus.htm">most of the attacks reported to ISAF have happened in the United States</a>. On a population basis, that makes the U.S. the most dangerous place to be in the water. Yet during that time, <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/statistics/statsw.htm">only nine of the world’s 70 shark-attack deaths have occurred here</a>. In 2012 the fatality rate from shark attacks worldwide was <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2012summary.html">22 percent</a>. In 2013 it was <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2013summary.html">36 percent</a>. In the U.S. the fatality rate in both years was 2 percent.</p>
<p>Where did the fatal attacks occur? Australia, South Africa, Brazil, Jamaica, New Zealand, R&eacute;union, and Diego Garcia. ISAF attributes the lower U.S. mortality rate to “<a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2012summary.html">the greater safety and medical capacity in areas of the U.S. where shark attacks historically occur</a>.” Last year’s sole fatal attack in U.S. waters wasn’t anywhere near the mainland. It was in Hawaii.</p>
<p>In 2011 the story was different. ISAF reported the lowest number of U.S. attacks in this century—and <a href="http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sharks/isaf/2011summary.html">the highest number of deaths worldwide</a>. These two records, it explained, were closely related:</p>
<blockquote>
The unusually low proportion of attacks occurring in the United States, particularly in Florida, and a jump in attacks in non-U.S. locales not blessed with as highly-developed safety and medical personnel and facilities led to an unusually high number of deaths.&nbsp;The fatality rate in the U.S. was zero, elsewhere it was nearly 25%.
</blockquote>
<p><em>Highly developed medical facilities</em>. <em>Safety personnel</em>. That’s what happens as your economy grows and people spend more time at the beach. Humans encounter sharks. The number of attacks increases, even as shark populations decline. But gradually, what was once a remote area becomes a populated coast with lifeguards, decent roads, and good hospitals. Shark attacks become a more common story, in part because the victims live to tell the tale.</p>Wed, 19 Feb 2014 20:08:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/19/why_shark_attacks_have_increased_and_deaths_from_shark_bite_have_declined.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-19T20:08:00ZNews and PoliticsWhy Shark Attacks Have Increased—and Why They’re Becoming Less Deadly244140219001sharksWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/19/why_shark_attacks_have_increased_and_deaths_from_shark_bite_have_declined.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy have shark attacks increased, while the death rate from shark bites has declined? Here's the answer.Why Shark Attacks Have Increased—and Why They’re Becoming Less DeadlyPhoto by STR/AFP/Getty ImagesSlaughtered sharks at a processing factory in China, July 26, 2011.Are Guns More Dangerous Than Snakes?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/18/gun_deaths_and_snake_handling_statistics_show_firearms_are_more_deadly.html
<p>Several <strong><em>Slate</em></strong> readers are skeptical of yesterday’s article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/handling_snakes_is_crazy_owning_guns_is_crazier.html">comparing snake-related deaths with gun-related deaths</a>. They singled out this line: “Having a gun in your home is far more dangerous than having a snake.” I didn’t provide data or a link to back up that statement. My readers want evidence.</p>
<p>Good question. Here are the numbers.</p>
<p>The best available estimates of deaths from snakebite were collected in a 2008 paper, <em>The Global Burden of Snakebite: A Literature Analysis and Modelling Based on Regional Estimates of Envenoming and Deaths</em>. Thanks to the <a href="http://www.plos.org/about/">Public Library of Science</a>, you can <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050218">read this paper online for free</a>. Table S2, <a href="http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050218#pmed-0050218-st002">appended</a> to the article, shows an estimate of 4.8 to 7.0 snakebite fatalities in the U.S. per year.</p>
<p>The estimate, according to the table, comes from a 2004 paper, <em><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17598326">Epidemiology of Snakebites Reported to Poison Centers in Texas from 1998 through 2002</a></em>. That paper isn’t available online. But you can read the abstract on the Web site of the <a href="http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/library/DSHSauthors-2004.shtm">Texas Department of State Health Services</a>. It says:</p>
<blockquote>
The 15 species and subspecies of poisonous snakes endemic to Texas include all of the major poisonous snakes in the United States. Rates of poisonous snakebites have been reported to be higher in Texas than in most other states. However, epidemiologic data on poisonous and nonpoisonous snakebites are limited. Using data on snakebites to humans reported to the six poison centers in Texas, we examined associations with various demographic and clinical factors. … The geographic pattern of reported snakebites was generally consistent with the reported distribution of the types of poisonous snakes.
</blockquote>
<p>This summary suggests two things. First, extrapolation from Texas to the U.S. as a whole probably exaggerates the national figure. And second, the geographic pattern, matching incidents to where the snake in question would have occurred naturally, implies that bites tend to involve wild snakes, not pet snakes.</p>
<p>Bites aren’t the only way a snake can kill you, however. In some cases, it can squeeze you to death. The Humane Society has a thorough, up-to-date report on <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/exotic_pets/facts/dangerous-exotic-pets-constrictor-snakes.html">known incidents involving constrictor snakes</a>. From 1978 to 2013, the report documents <a href="http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/wildlife/captive/captive-constrictor-snake-incidents.pdf">17 human deaths</a> caused by large constrictor snakes in this country. That’s approximately one every two years.</p>
<p>In 2011, according to the <em><a href="https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/Statistics/Pages/Market-research-statistics-US-Pet-Ownership-Demographics-Sourcebook.aspx">U.S. Pet Ownership &amp; Demographics Sourcebook</a></em>, there were 1.15 million pet snakes in the U.S., living in some 550,000 U.S. households. That’s five to seven snake-related deaths per year—of which most were probably bites from wild snakes—in a country with more than a million pet snakes.</p>
<p>Now let’s look at the gun numbers. The best compilation is in a 2013 Institute of Medicine report, <em><a href="http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence/Report-Brief060513.aspx">Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence</a></em>. That report cites a <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_06.pdf">tabulation of 2011 data</a> from the National Center for Health Statistics. According to Table 2 of the NCHS document, 19,766 people died that year in the U.S. from “intentional self-harm by discharge of firearms,” 11,101 died from “assault by discharge of firearms,” and 851 died from “accidental discharge of firearms.”</p>
<p>Those are big numbers. But the gun denominator is enormous. The IOM report notes that in 2007, by one estimate, the U.S. had 83 million shotguns, 105 million rifles, and 106 million handguns—a total of 294 million firearms.</p>
<p>If you do the raw math, the chance that a particular gun will kill somebody in this country, in any given year, is about 30,000 out of 300 million, or 0.01 percent. The chance that a particular pet snake will kill somebody in this country, in any given year, is 6 out of 1.15 million, which works out to around .0005 percent. By that calculation, a gun is 20 times more dangerous than a snake.</p>
<p>There are problems with this computation. It seems unfair to include homicides in the gun tally, since, as far as I know, there are no snake-related homicides. So let’s take those out of the numerator. That knocks the gun fatality rate down to 20,000 out of 300 million. But that’s still about 13 times higher than the snake fatality rate.</p>
<p>If you take suicides out of the equation, you can argue that the 850 accidental firearm deaths, against a denominator of 300 million guns, is only 0.0003 percent—lower than the snake fatality rate. But that’s not fair, either. To start with, you’re being uncharitable to pet snakes. Judging from the numbers and patterns reported from Texas and the Humane Society, the overwhelming majority of snake-related deaths are from bites, not constriction, and these bites seem to be largely from wild snakes. Wikipedia’s <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_snake_bites_in_the_United_States">informal catalogue of more than 30 fatal bites</a> in the U.S. indicates that most were from wild snakes, and a few were from handling snakes in religious ceremonies. Only one is attributed to a pet snake. By that measure, even if you focus strictly on accidental deaths, a pet gun is 20 times more dangerous than a pet snake.</p>
<p>If you really want to use 300 million guns as a denominator, without regard to who owns the guns, then it’s only fair to give snakes the same courtesy, by using their entire U.S. population—wild snakes, too—as the denominator for calculating their lethality. In the Florida Everglades alone, the estimate for a single large and dangerous species, Burmese pythons, runs as high as <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/02/16/172191123/floridas-great-python-challenge-is-over-not-many-are-caught">150,000</a>. God knows how big the U.S. population of all snake species is.</p>
<p>Another way to calculate the risk is by household. The pet ownership sourcebook says 550,000 U.S. households have snakes. Gallup’s most recent survey, taken in October 2013, found that <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx">37 percent</a> of U.S. households—that’s about 32 million, given the <a href="http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html">census estimate of 115 million households</a>—have guns. So the ratio of snake fatalities to snake-owning households is about 1 in 100,000. The ratio of accidental gun fatalities to gun-owning households is about 1 in 40,000. That’s assuming, against the evidence, that all snake fatalities are inflicted by household-possessed snakes—and excluding, as a safety issue, the 20,000 people who commit suicide every year with firearms. If you exclude homicides but count suicides, the ratio of gun deaths to gun-owning households is about 1 in 1,500.</p>
<p>So, yeah. Having a gun in your home is far more dangerous than having a snake.<br /> </p>Tue, 18 Feb 2014 20:21:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/18/gun_deaths_and_snake_handling_statistics_show_firearms_are_more_deadly.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-18T20:21:00ZNews and PoliticsYes, Guns Are More Dangerous Than Snakes. Here’s the Math.244140218001gun violencegun controlWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/18/gun_deaths_and_snake_handling_statistics_show_firearms_are_more_deadly.htmlfalsefalsefalseYes, guns are more dangerous than snakes. Here’s the math.Yes, Guns Are More Dangerous Than Snakes. Here’s the Math.Photo by Scott Olson/Getty ImagesYou'd be better off buying a snake.The Muslim Threathttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/14/muslims_in_the_2016_campaign_islamophobia_and_the_war_on_christianity.html
<p>Yesterday I wrote about <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/13/muslims_in_myanmar_and_the_central_african_republic_how_ethnic_cleansing.html">the danger of demonizing Muslims</a>. I cited remarks from <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2010/08/muslims_keep_out.html">several Republican politicians</a> who argued a couple of years ago that <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/09/creep_the_faith.html">no mosque</a> should be&nbsp;<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/01/sarah_palin_bloodlibel_hypocrite.html">allowed near the site of the 9/11 attack</a> in New York.</p>
<p>Today I looked at a <a href="http://officeofgovernorbobbyjindal.createsend1.com/t/ViewEmail/d/930F67F00F751D63/0B5AEB36B909D8502540EF23F30FEDED">speech given last night</a> in California by Gov. Bobby Jindal, R-La. Jindal’s speech, which asserted a religious right to practice anti-gay policies in private business activity, <a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2000/03/The-Truth-About-Bob-Jones-University.aspx">echoed the argument made 14 years ago by Bob Jones University</a> in defense of its policy against interracial dating. The resemblance is uncanny. You can read the whole article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/02/homosexuality_religious_freedom_and_interracial_sex_is_bobby_jindal_the.html">here</a>.<br /> </p>
<p>But Jindal’s speech raised another problematic theme as well: the idea of a war between Islam and Christianity. Here’s what he said:</p>
<blockquote>
In nation after nation, Christians are being slaughtered by radical Islamists for their beliefs. … Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote that “The cross is laid on every Christian. It begins with the call to abandon the attachments of this world. ... When Christ calls a man, He bids him come and die.” And today, around the world, many Christians are living out that calling. That is a shooting war over religion, not a silent one.
</blockquote>
<p>In targeting Islam, Jindal is hardly alone. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, another likely Republican candidate for president, asserted two years ago that “<a href="http://www.texastribune.org/2012/07/06/cruz-and-dewhurst-surrogate-exchange-words-after-f/">Sharia law is an enormous problem</a>.” And last fall, a third likely candidate, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, told an overwhelmingly Christian audience at the <a href="http://www.frcaction.org/get.cfm?i=PG13J03">Values Voters Summit</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Today I want to tell you about a war the mainstream media is ignoring. From Boston to Zanzibar, there is a worldwide war on Christianity. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Ever since 9/11, commentators have tried to avoid pointing fingers at Islam. While it is fair to point out that most Muslims are not committed to violence against Christians, this is not the whole truth and we should not let political correctness stand in the way of the truth.&nbsp;…
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
We send billions of dollars a year to Pakistan and Egypt. We helped put new Islamic regimes in place in Afghanistan and Iraq. President Obama now sends arms to Islamic Rebels in Syria. In Egypt the mob attacked our embassy and burned our flag. I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough.
</blockquote>
<p>It’s one thing to acknowledge that terrorists who kill Americans tend to do so in the name of Islam. It’s quite another thing to accept them as representatives of their faith, to affirm their message of enmity between Christianity and Islam, and to portray Islamic law as a threat within this country.</p>
<p>Do the Republicans running for president really believe that? Do they think such talk will make this country safer? Do they think it will make us more free?</p>Fri, 14 Feb 2014 20:52:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/14/muslims_in_the_2016_campaign_islamophobia_and_the_war_on_christianity.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-14T20:52:00ZNews and PoliticsMuslim-Baiting in the 2016 Presidential Campaign244140214001islamWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/14/muslims_in_the_2016_campaign_islamophobia_and_the_war_on_christianity.htmlfalsefalsefalseMuslim-baiting in the 2016 campaign: Islamophobia and the “war on Christianity.”Muslim-Baiting in the 2016 Presidential CampaignPhoto by Drew Angerer/Getty ImagesSens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Rand Paul, R-Ky., at a rally on Sept. 10, 2013.The Slaughter of Muslimshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/13/muslims_in_myanmar_and_the_central_african_republic_how_ethnic_cleansing.html
<p>Those damned Muslims. You can’t trust them. They’d just as soon kill you as look at you.</p>
<p>That’s the way a lot of Americans felt after 9/11. The fever rose so high that <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2010/08/muslims_keep_out.html">leaders of the Republican Party</a> said <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2010/09/creep_the_faith.html">no mosque</a> should be <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2011/01/sarah_palin_bloodlibel_hypocrite.html">allowed near the site of the attack</a>.</p>
<p>This kind of thinking is deeply dangerous. It confuses the universal cause of religious violence—indiscriminate hatred—with a particular religion. And this mistake can lead to two tragedies. &nbsp;One is the adoption of indiscriminate hatred by those who claim to oppose it. The other is the fatal infliction of this hatred on innocent people.</p>
<p>That’s what is now happening in Africa and Asia, according to reports issued this week by Amnesty International and the <a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47116">United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights</a>. Amnesty’s report, released yesterday, <a href="https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/alfrescotemporary/AI_CAR+report_Feb2014.pdf">summarizes the African crisis</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
“Ethnic cleansing” of Muslims has been carried out in the western part of the Central African Republic, the most populous part of the country, since early January 2014. Entire Muslim communities have been forced to flee, and hundreds of Muslim civilians who have not managed to escape have been killed by the loosely organized militias … At least 200 Muslims have been killed and hundreds more injured …
</blockquote>
<p>Meanwhile, the U.N. announced that tomorrow it is <a href="http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14239&amp;LangID=E">sending a human rights investigator to Myanmar</a>. The investigator will meet with Muslim and Buddhist representatives, following a January incident in which “<a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=46987">at least 40 Rohingya Muslim men, women and children were killed</a>.” The <em>New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/25/world/asia/un-says-muslims-were-massacred-in-tense-myanmar-region.html">explains the context</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The area where the attacks occurred has been torn by tensions between its Buddhist population and Muslims known as Rohingya, with frequent bursts of violence driving more than 100,000 Rohingya Muslims from their homes and leaving at least 200 dead.
</blockquote>
<p>Muslims are part of the violence, too. The U.N. notes that the massacre in Myanmar followed a clash “in which a police sergeant was captured and killed by the Rohingya villagers.” In the Central African Republic, attacks on Muslims came before and after “<a href="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47116">young Muslims … retaliated in a killing spree</a>.” Amnesty tells the whole story:</p>
<blockquote>
Since the mostly Muslim Seleka coalition seized power in March 2013, the country has been shattered by violence, much of it against members of the Christian community. The Seleka, which left power in mid-January 2014, killed thousands of Christian civilians, and looted and burned thousands of Christian homes. The lawless and abusive nature of their rule gave rise to unprecedented sectarian violence and hatred, with many Christians attributing responsibility for the Seleka’s abuses to the country’s Muslim minority as a whole. Their fear, anger, and desire for revenge spurred the development of the predominantly Christian anti-balaka. … In town after town, as soon as the Seleka left, the anti-balaka moved in and launched violent attacks on the Muslim minority.
</blockquote>
<p>The latest purge of Muslims is hardly the end of the story. Amnesty reports that “large numbers of Christians were killed in reprisal attacks” by Muslims.</p>
<p>The lesson here isn’t that all Muslims are innocent, or that Christians and Buddhists are dangerous, or that one religion is worse than another. The lesson is that the more you fixate on blaming one religion, the more you sink into the cycle of sectarian hatred. And when restraint and self-restraint give way, you end up with sectarian violence. Calling yourself a follower of Buddha or Christ won’t save you from taking part in the persecution. What will save you is understanding that the principles of peace, justice, and respect for others are bigger than your religion, or anyone else’s.</p>Thu, 13 Feb 2014 18:55:13 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/13/muslims_in_myanmar_and_the_central_african_republic_how_ethnic_cleansing.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-13T18:55:13ZNews and PoliticsHow Do You End Up Slaughtering Muslims? By Blaming Muslims For Religious Violence.244140213001islamreligionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/13/muslims_in_myanmar_and_the_central_african_republic_how_ethnic_cleansing.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow do you end up slaughtering Muslims? By blaming Muslims for religious violence.How Do You End Up Slaughtering Muslims? By Blaming Muslims For Religious Violence.Photo by Ye Aung Thu/AFP/GettyImagesA demonstrator in Myanmar calling for a purge of Rohingya Muslims, June 11, 2012.Obama’s Pot Answerhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/obama_s_marijuana_interview_are_his_confession_and_drug_policy_ideas_better.html
<p>Yesterday I <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/02/marco_rubio_s_marijuana_hypocrisy_his_evasion_of_the_pot_question_teaches.html">criticized Sen. Marco Rubio</a>, R-Fla., for stiff-arming a question about his marijuana use and <a href="http://fusion.net/leadership/story/marco-rubio-smoked-marijuana-422360">claiming that he was doing so to protect children</a>. I contrasted his maneuver with the Drug Enforcement Administration’s advice to parents (i.e., <a href="http://www.justice.gov/dea/pr/multimedia-library/publications/growing-up-drug-free.pdf">tell your kids the truth if they ask</a>) and with the candid reply given two years ago by <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiNEQTdeG8I">former Sen. Rick Santorum</a>.</p>
<p>What about President Obama? How do his answers stack up?</p>
<p>Three months ago, David Remnick, the editor of the <em>New Yorker</em>, <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/01/27/140127fa_fact_remnick">asked Obama about legalizing marijuana</a>. Here’s what Obama said:</p>
<blockquote>
I smoked pot as a kid, and I view it as a bad habit and a vice, not very different from the cigarettes that I smoked as a young person up through a big chunk of my adult life. I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.
</blockquote>
<p>When Remnick asked whether marijuana was less dangerous than alcohol, Obama said yes, “in terms of its impact on the individual consumer.” However, he added, “I’ve told my daughters I think it’s a bad idea, a waste of time, not very healthy.”</p>
<p>That’s basically a sound answer. Unlike Rubio or George W. Bush, Obama didn’t obfuscate. He showed, as Santorum did, that you can tell the truth and still explain why, in your view, today’s young people shouldn’t do what you did. Obama’s answer has the additional virtue of demonstrating that you don’t have to mindlessly defend the status quo to argue against smoking dope. He acknowledged, apparently on his own initiative, that our harsh treatment of marijuana, relative to tobacco and alcohol, makes little sense.</p>
<p>Extending this criticism, Obama argued that</p>
<blockquote>
we should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing. … It’s important for society not to have a situation in which a large portion of people have at one time or another broken the law, and only a select few get punished.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, no, hypocrisy isn’t OK. Everybody knows our enforcement of drug laws is a joke. To restore respect for the law as a whole, we have to reform these statutes and their administration. Politicians who insist on zero tolerance while <a href="http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1987/Rep-Gingrich-Says-He-Smoked-Marijuana-Once-With-AM-Ginsburg-Bjt/id-9ec40d4fb33252d69d9bc252bd73af0c">shrugging</a> that they smoked pot <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1994/12/05/us/many-white-house-employees-used-drugs-gingrich-asserts.html">in graduate school</a>, or refusing to say whether they did or didn’t, breed contempt for the law.</p>
<p>At the same time, Obama rejected legalization as the solution:</p>
<blockquote>
Those who argue that legalizing marijuana is a panacea, and it solves all these social problems, I think, are probably overstating the case. There is a lot of hair on that policy. And the experiment that’s going to be taking place in Colorado and Washington is going to be, I think, a challenge.
</blockquote>
<p>This isn’t a rejection of legalization. In fact, Obama said the legalization plans in those two states should “go forward.” What he rejected was the pretense that legalization would solve the problem. Legalization is just one step. You have to couple that move—the withdrawal of criminal penalties for individual possession—with the substitution of cultural discouragement, regulation, and restrictions on large-scale commercial exploitation.</p>
<p>I wish I could reduce Obama’s answer to a sound bite for you. I can’t. It’s too messy, with too many acknowledgments: Yes, I smoked weed; no, you shouldn’t. Yes, it’s no worse than alcohol; no, it’s still unhealthy. Yes, it should be legalized; no, not everywhere right away. Yes, we can decriminalize it; no, we can’t deregulate it.</p>
<p>To some people, this looks like confusion. To me, it’s wisdom. Sometimes you have to work with reality as you find it.</p>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 23:32:54 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/obama_s_marijuana_interview_are_his_confession_and_drug_policy_ideas_better.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-12T23:32:54ZNews and PoliticsIs Obama’s Answer About Smoking Pot Better Than Rubio’s?244140212002marijuanadrug abuseWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/obama_s_marijuana_interview_are_his_confession_and_drug_policy_ideas_better.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs Obama’s answer about smoking pot better than Rubio’s?Is Obama’s Answer About Smoking Pot Better Than Rubio’s?Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty ImagesA protester displays a satirical portrait of President Obama at a march for marijuana legalization in Germany on Aug. 7, 2010.Michael Sam’s Family Valueshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/michael_sam_s_father_shows_gay_men_can_have_better_family_values_than_straight.html
<p>Twenty-two years ago, when George W. Bush’s father was president of the United States, <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-08-30/news/1992243001_1_family-values-values-talk-values-represent">“family values” meant “anti-gay.”</a> The 1992 Republican National Convention, held in Houston, was a theater of jeremiads against <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/21/us/1992-campaign-issues-family-values-bush-tries-recoup-harsh-tone-values.html">the perils of homosexuality and feminism</a>.</p>
<p>Michael Sam was then 2 years old. He was living in Hitchcock, Texas, 35 miles from the convention site and 25 miles from where I grew up. Political speeches, sermons, and football culture <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.html">failed to turn him straight</a>. This week, he <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/02/michael_sam_gay_by_coming_out_the_missouri_star_will_force_the_nfl_to_confront.html">publicly affirmed his homosexuality</a>. He’s expected to become the NFL’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/10/football_player_mike_sam_gay_which_lucky_nfl_franchise_will_sign_him.html">first openly gay player</a>.</p>
<p>Sam’s father, Michael Sam Sr., is <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/02/10/michael_sam_s_father_says_he_was_shocked_and_supportive_of_his_son_s_coming.html">happy about his son’s success</a> in football. But he was sickened to learn that the young man was gay. According to the <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/sports/football/for-nfl-prospect-michael-sam-upbringing-was-bigger-challenge-than-coming-out-as-gay.html">New York Times</a></em>,</p>
<blockquote>
Last Tuesday, Michael Sam Sr. was at a Denny’s near his home outside Dallas to celebrate his birthday when his son sent him a text message.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Dad, I’m gay, he wrote.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The party stopped cold. “I couldn’t eat no more, so I went to Applebee’s to have drinks,” Sam Sr. said. “I don’t want my grandkids raised in that kind of environment.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
“I’m old school,” he added. “I’m a man-and-a-woman type of guy.” As evidence, he pointed out that he had taken an older son to Mexico to lose his virginity.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a sobering portrait of what family values meant to Michael Sam Sr. The right kind of environment for raising children was one in which a man took his virgin son to another country to have sex with a woman. In the household Michael Sam Sr. created, two sons died, and two more ended up in jail. The one who escaped and appears to be living the most moral life is the gay kid.</p>
<p>The gay kid escaped to the University of Missouri. There, he found a different kind of family. A <em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/video/sports/football/100000002703045/back-home-sense-of-pride-in-michael-sam.html">Times</a></em><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/video/sports/football/100000002703045/back-home-sense-of-pride-in-michael-sam.html"> video</a> shows the university’s football coach, Gary Pinkel, talking to reporters after Sam came out. “I’m very proud of Michael Sam,” says Pinkel. “I’m very proud of our football team. It just says so much for our family and our team, the kind of kids that we have, and how much they care about each other.”</p>
<p>In the video, Michael Sam Jr. agrees. “I knew there was a reason why I chose Mizzou,” he says. “It was such a family-based atmosphere. No one had a problem about my sexuality.”</p>
<p>If you’re socially liberal, the difference between these two worlds is obvious. In Sam’s birth family, he faced a father who rejected homosexuality as immoral. In his collegiate family, he found teammates and a coach who welcomed him as he was. Family values, to many liberals, means acceptance without judgment.</p>
<p>But if you’re conservative, the contrast is even more disturbing. Conservatives don’t have a problem with moral judgment. By that standard, I’m conservative. The problem here is that there’s no sane rule of moral judgment under which the birth family looks better than the collegiate family. The “man and woman” household produced by Michael Sam Sr. led to sexual corruption, delinquency, crime, and death.</p>
<p>No one can predict Michael Sam Jr.’s football career with certainty. He might be taken in the third or fourth round of the draft. He might be taken later. He might become a starter in his rookie year. He might wash out.</p>
<p>But here’s one prediction you can bet on: The family he builds as a gay man will be better than the “old school” family he grew up in. It won’t just be more tolerant. It will be more principled, better organized, and more useful to society. The next time you hear somebody talk about “family values,” remember that.</p>Wed, 12 Feb 2014 16:07:17 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/michael_sam_s_father_shows_gay_men_can_have_better_family_values_than_straight.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-12T16:07:17ZNews and PoliticsMichael Sam’s Gay Life Can’t Be Less Moral Than His Dad’s “Old School” Parenting244140212001homosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/12/michael_sam_s_father_shows_gay_men_can_have_better_family_values_than_straight.htmlfalsefalsefalseMichael Sam’s gay life can’t be less moral than his dad’s “old school” parenting.Michael Sam’s Gay Life Can’t Be Less Moral Than His Dad’s “Old School” ParentingPhoto by Stacy Revere/Getty ImagesMichael Sam celebrates with fans after a win on Nov. 23, 2013.The Pope’s Catholic Problemhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/11/catholic_poll_on_abortion_gay_marriage_and_birth_control_europe_and_the.html
<p>It’s not easy being pope. You have 2,000 years of tradition to defend. You have piles of doctrine and an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. Meanwhile, you have liberals clamoring for change. And then there’s your boss.</p>
<p>To navigate these difficulties, Pope Francis recently <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/180575701/Letter-from-Msgr-Ronny-Jenkins-to-the-USCCB">instructed bishops</a> to <a href="http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/vatican-asks-parish-level-input-synod-document">survey their flocks about various social issues.</a> The issues included <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/180575701/Vatican-questionnaire-for-the-synod-on-the-family">birth control, premarital sex, divorce, and gay marriage</a>. The purpose of the survey was to reconsider not the church’s teachings but how it communicated those teachings to the faithful.</p>
<p>Catholics in Europe and the U.S. knew what the results would be. Findings released last week in <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/catholic-survey-shows-deep-frustration-within-the-church-a-946069.html">Germany</a> and <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/vatican-surveys-find-catholics-reject-sex-rules-22367002">Switzerland</a> showed a <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/03/us-vatican-family-germany-idUSBREA121EH20140203">wide gap</a> between the church and its followers. An <a href="http://www.univision.com/interactivos/openpage/2014-02-06/la-voz-del-pueblo-portada-en">independent survey released this weekend by Univision</a> confirms a <a href="http://www.univision.com/interactivos/openpage/2014-02-06/la-voz-del-pueblo-matriz-1">similar gap in the U.S</a>. &nbsp;On every issue, American Catholics are more liberal than the church’s teachings.</p>
<p>The Univision poll found that 54 percent of U.S. Catholics supported same-sex marriage. Fifty-nine percent supported admitting women to the priesthood. Sixty percent thought Catholics who had divorced and remarried outside the church should be eligible to receive communion. Sixty-one percent thought priests should be allowed to marry. Seventy-six percent thought abortion should be permitted at least in some circumstances. Seventy-nine percent supported contraception.</p>
<p>So Francis should get with the program, right? He should push the church to change these positions, right? Eh, not so fast. It turns out that if you poll Catholics globally—not just the ones here and in Europe—you get a more complicated picture. In much of the world, Catholics aren’t to the left of Francis. They’re on the right.</p>
<p>The Univision survey sampled more than 12,000 Catholics in 12 countries. Together, the Catholic populations of these countries represent more than 60 percent of Catholics worldwide. The countries were Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, France, Italy, Mexico, Poland, the Philippines, Spain, the U.S., and Uganda.</p>
<p>Most Catholics in the U.S., Europe, and Latin America said abortion should be permitted in some cases. But in the Congo, Uganda, and the Philippines, majorities—56, 64, and 73 percent, respectively—said abortion should never be allowed. Catholics in those three countries also opposed communion for divorced people. In the U.S., Western Europe, Argentina and Brazil, support for female priests outweighed opposition. But in Mexico, Poland, the Philippines, and the two African nations, opposition outweighed support.</p>
<p>On gay marriage, respondents backed the church. Support for same-sex marriage outnumbered opposition in only two countries: the U.S. and Spain. Everywhere else, opposition outnumbered support. In Argentina and Brazil, the margin was very tight. In France, it was clearer: 51 to 43 percent. &nbsp;In Italy, it was quite clear: 66 to 30 percent. In Uganda and the Congo, the opposition figure was nearly 100 percent. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/pope-francis-faces-church-divided-over-doctrine-global-poll-of-catholics-finds/2014/02/08/e90ecef4-8f89-11e3-b227-12a45d109e03_story.html">Two-thirds of the entire 12-nation sample</a> opposed same-sex marriage.</p>
<p>That doesn’t mean the Vatican can rest easy. The pollsters found that overall, young Catholics were more likely than older Catholics to favor gay marriage, by about 18 percentage points. Unless that gap disappears as young Catholics age, the church will face stress over this issue. On contraception, the stress is already severe. Seventy-eight percent of the 12-nation sample endorsed contraception. In all three South American countries, the support level exceeded 90 percent. Only one country, Uganda, showed a majority in sync with the church’s position.</p>
<p>In theory, being pope, rather than president, means you don’t have to consult polls. In practice, however, a church hierarchy that’s out of touch with its grass roots is in trouble. If your followers don’t agree with you, they aren’t really followers. On issues of family morality, the Vatican has a problem. But the problem isn’t just that Catholics don’t agree with the pope. The problem is that Catholics don’t agree with Catholics.</p>Tue, 11 Feb 2014 15:00:01 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/11/catholic_poll_on_abortion_gay_marriage_and_birth_control_europe_and_the.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-11T15:00:01ZNews and PoliticsIs the Vatican Out of Touch With Catholics? In the U.S., Yes. But Not Worldwide.244140211001catholicismpope francisWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/11/catholic_poll_on_abortion_gay_marriage_and_birth_control_europe_and_the.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs the Vatican out of touch with Catholics? In the U.S., Yes. But not worldwide.Is the Vatican Out of Touch With Catholics? In the U.S., Yes. But Not Worldwide.Photo by Gabriel Bouys/AFP/Getty ImagesPope Francis speaking to Sri Lankans after a Mass at the Vatican, Feb. 8, 2014.Homosexuality, Choice, and Michael Samhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.html
<p>Michael Sam, an outstanding collegiate football player, has come out of the closet. He’s expected to be picked in the third or fourth round of the National Football League draft. He’ll be the NFL’s first openly gay player.</p>
<p>My colleague Josh Levin makes the case for <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sports_nut/2014/02/michael_sam_gay_by_coming_out_the_missouri_star_will_force_the_nfl_to_confront.html">Sam as a groundbreaker</a>. In <strong><em>Slate</em></strong>’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward.html">Outward</a> blog, Tyler Lopez makes a <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/10/football_player_mike_sam_gay_which_lucky_nfl_franchise_will_sign_him.html">business case</a> for drafting Sam. But I want to focus on something else: what Sam’s story tells us about the nature of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/10429030/michael-sam-missouri-tigers-says-gay">ESPN interview</a>, Sam said what a lot of gay men have said about their adolescent years: “I knew from a young age that I was attracted to guys. And growing up, I didn’t know if it was a phase.” He thought it might go away. It didn’t.</p>
<p>Sam’s life would have been easier if it had gone away. He didn’t grow up in an environment where homosexuality was accepted or tolerated. In the interview, he recalled “seeing my older brother killed from a gunshot wound, knowing that my older sister died when she was a baby.” A second brother went missing and was later pronounced dead. Two other two brothers have been “in and out of jail since eighth grade, currently both in jail.” In the interview, Sam reflected:</p>
<blockquote>
I could be in jail. I could be dead. … But I made a choice. I made a choice at a young age that I knew that I didn’t want to follow that path of my brothers. I knew I didn’t want to follow the path where I had to call my mom from jail and say, “Can you bail me out?” Or running streets or whatever. I knew that I wanted to have some success so my family could be proud of me.
</blockquote>
<p>The key words are <em>I made a choice</em>. Against the grain of everything that had happened in his family, Sam chose a different course. You can question lots of things about Sam: Does he have the size to play lineman in the NFL? Should he be a starter? What you can’t question is his will.</p>
<p>And that should make you think hard, if you haven’t already, about the role of willpower in sexual orientation. Some people think homosexuality is a choice. Many others accept that it’s an inclination but insist that you can overcome it. Even among liberals, there’s occasional loose talk that <a href="http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116378/macklemores-same-love-sends-wrong-message-about-being-gay">being gay is a personal decision</a>.</p>
<p>There are some people, at the margins of bisexuality, for whom <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2009/04/shades_of_gay.html">that’s true</a>. But gay men—those who know they’re gay, not just fooling around—don’t choose to be gay and can’t make themselves straight. If the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/02/04/choose_to_be_gay_no_you_don_t.html">science</a> and the <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/06/20/exodus_international_an_ex_gay_ministry_apologizes_for_the_harm_it_s_done.html">spectacular failure of “ex-gay” ministries</a> don’t convince you, look at Michael Sam. He’s about to take the brunt of being the NFL’s first openly gay player—an ordeal any sensible person would avoid if he could. To get here, Sam had to find the moral strength to break a family history of crime and death. What he couldn’t break was his sexual orientation. It wasn’t his choice.</p>Mon, 10 Feb 2014 15:27:11 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-10T15:27:11ZNews and PoliticsMichael Sam Defied a Family History of Crime and Death. What He Couldn’t Change Was His Homosexuality.244140210001homosexualityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/10/michael_sam_the_first_gay_nfl_player_shows_homosexuality_is_not_a_choice.htmlfalsefalsefalseMichael Sam defied a family history of crime and death. What he couldn’t change was his homosexuality.Michael Sam Defied a Family History of Crime and Death. What He Couldn’t Change Was His Homosexuality.Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty ImagesMichael Sam celebrates after scoring a touchdown on Oct. 12, 2013.The Black Republican Stereotypehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/07/is_tim_scott_a_ventriloquist_s_dummy_the_black_republican_stereotype_and.html
<p>A couple of weeks ago, the president of the North Carolina NAACP insulted Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C. “<a href="http://www.thestate.com/2014/01/19/3216854/in-fiery-pre-mlk-day-speech-nc.html">A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy</a>,” said the NAACP boss, William Barber. “The extreme right wing down here finds a black guy to be senator and claims he’s the first black senator since Reconstruction, and then he goes to Washington, D.C., and articulates the agenda of the Tea Party.”</p>
<p>Scott, taken aback, said he had never met Barber. The senator <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/21/tim-scott-responds-to-naacp-insult-reminds-me-and-others-of-what-not-to-do/">told the <em>Daily Caller</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
I did not meet him when I was failing out of&nbsp;high school. I did not see him on the streets of my neighborhoods where too many of my friends got off track and never recovered. I did not meet him when I was working 85 hour weeks to start my business, nor did I meet him when I was running for Congress against long odds.
</blockquote>
<p>This week on <em>Meet the Press</em>, Scott was asked again about Barber’s comments. The senator shrugged, “<a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54250417/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/t/feb-denis-mcdonough-tim-scott-julian-assange-rich-lowry-robert-gibbs-gwen-ifill-doris-kearns-goodwin-chuck-todd-alan-schwarz-tony-dungy/">You just can't really respond to someone who's never taken the time to get to know you</a>.” Then he talked about bills he was working on to promote job skills and school choice.</p>
<p>Let’s set aside, for the moment, the policy disputes between Democrats and the Tea Party. You may think, as I do, that most of the Tea Party is wrongheaded, and that much of it is unhinged. But that’s not the point here. The point is that William Barber has never met Tim Scott. And none of Barber’s reported comments address Scott’s <a href="http://www.scott.senate.gov/legislative-work">legislation</a> or his <a href="http://www.scott.senate.gov/about-me/biography">career</a>.</p>
<p>To put it in terms any NAACP leader should understand, Barber has prejudged Scott. He has prejudged him as a puppet based on the senator’s color and his party. This prejudgment fits a long tradition of epithets: <em>Uncle Tom</em>, <em>house negro</em>, <em>oreo</em>. The fact that these epithets tend to be used more by black people than by white people doesn’t change what they add up to: a racial stereotype.</p>
<p>We can argue all day about the Tea Party, Republican policies, and what Martin Luther King would have stood for today. To me, the core of his message was the right to be treated as an individual. His dream was, in his words, a nation in which his children would be judged not “<a href="http://www.archives.gov/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf">by the color of their skin but by the content of their character</a>.”</p>
<p>Tim Scott has that right, too. Everyone does. If what you want is the advancement of black people, and all people, take the trouble to get to know each person before you dismiss him. If you’re going to criticize him, at least criticize him as an individual. You owe him that.</p>Fri, 07 Feb 2014 15:38:17 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/07/is_tim_scott_a_ventriloquist_s_dummy_the_black_republican_stereotype_and.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-07T15:38:17ZNews and PoliticsWhy Is This Racial Stereotype Politically Correct?244140207001racismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/07/is_tim_scott_a_ventriloquist_s_dummy_the_black_republican_stereotype_and.htmlfalsefalsefalseWhy is this racial stereotype politically correct?Why Is This Racial Stereotype Politically Correct?Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty ImagesSen. Tim Scott, R-S.C., at the Values Voter Summit, Oct. 11, 2013.Science, Religion, and Compartmentalizationhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/06/creationism_science_and_religion_can_a_nasa_scientist_believe_in_the_resurrection.html
<p>Today I defended creationism, in compartmentalized form, as a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/creationism_debate_believing_the_bible_over_evolution_is_delusional_but.html">harmless delusion</a>. Many of you objected vociferously. Some of you argued that creationism can’t really be compartmentalized—that it inherently corrupts the thinking of citizens and scientists who accept it. That’s a logical argument. But in real life, it isn’t true.</p>
<p>People compartmentalize their beliefs all the time. That’s particularly true of religious beliefs in modern society. Over the centuries, science has steamrolled religion. Faith has fervor, but science has evidence, technical power, and progress on its side. So religion has retreated to the margins. Today, if you’re a serious scientist, you can still believe in God. But you have to consign Him to the spaces unclaimed by science. You have to compartmentalize.</p>
<p>That’s what Dr. Jennifer Wiseman has done. In today’s piece, I mentioned two Genesis-believing scientists who were cited by Ken Ham in his debate with Bill Nye on Tuesday. Some of you dismissed these scientists as liars or fools. Good luck pinning those labels on Wiseman. She’s <a href="http://science.gsfc.nasa.gov/sed/index.cfm?fuseAction=people.jumpBio&amp;&amp;iphonebookid=1713">the senior project scientist for the Hubble Space Telescope</a>. She isn’t a creationist. But she does believe that divine power has intervened in the world.</p>
<p>Three months ago, I met Wiseman at the <a href="http://www.eppc.org/events/faith-angle-forum-november-2013/">Faith Angle Forum</a>, a conference on religion and public life hosted by the <a href="http://www.eppc.org/">Ethics and Public Policy Center</a>. She answered questions from a room full of journalists. The last question, and the best, came from Fred Barnes of the <em>Weekly Standard</em>. He asked Wiseman, “How do you, as a scientist and a believer, deal with matters like the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the existence of the Holy Spirit?”</p>
<p>I thought she would duck the question. She didn’t. <a href="http://www.eppc.org/publications/dr-jennifer-wiseman-at-the-november-2013-faith-angle-forum/">Here’s what she said</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
I tend to think of a miracle as possible, and that miracles actually have happened, but they are just what they sound like: They are a&nbsp;
<em>miracle</em>. There’s something that’s outside of the natural working of the forces of nature, and so science is not equipped to address that one way or the other. Science is equipped to address how things normally and naturally work. So as a scientist, I study the universe in the way it normally and naturally works and has worked throughout the whole history of time. I don’t look for anything else, because my scientific tools are not equipped to measure anything else. But does that mean that nothing outside of the normal, natural physical processes that science can address ever happened or ever does happen? Well, science can’t answer that question. So I have to answer that question in some other way. And to me, the answer is yes, because I see both historical and personal evidence for God’s actions …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
I do see evidence for things—in particular, the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is to me ample evidence that that event, in the course of time, changed history and changed lives, and people are experiencing the living Christ today. Is that a scientific conclusion? Absolutely not. But is there enough evidence for one to believe it? For me, yes.
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a textbook case of compartmentalized religion. It isn’t creationism. But it is a belief in historical events that originated, and will forever remain, outside the realm of science. You’d have no better luck talking Wiseman out of her belief in the Resurrection than you would talking Ken Ham out of his belief that God breathed life into the first man.</p>
<p>Creationists become a problem for society when they interfere with the teaching of science. But creationism <em>per se</em>, as a compartmentalized belief system, isn’t a problem. Compartmentalization is exactly what you should want from creationists. It’s what allows them, and the rest of us, to get on with the business of science and technology and living in the real world, without having to eradicate the pervasive craving for transcendence. You don’t have to disabuse everyone of religion. Clear a path for science, and let faith have its space.</p>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:57:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/06/creationism_science_and_religion_can_a_nasa_scientist_believe_in_the_resurrection.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-06T19:57:00ZNews and PoliticsA Senior U.S. Astronomer Believes in the Resurrection. Deal With It.244140206001creationismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/06/creationism_science_and_religion_can_a_nasa_scientist_believe_in_the_resurrection.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe Hubble telescope’s senior scientist believes in the Resurrection. Deal with it.A Senior U.S. Astronomer Believes in the Resurrection. Deal With It.Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty ImagesA picture of Jesus Christ on a wall in the Philippines, Nov. 13, 2013.The Moral Effects of Experiencehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/05/embryo_testing_does_personal_experience_make_you_morally_wise.html
<p>It’s often said, wisely, that you don’t really understand the morality of a dilemma until you experience it personally. Abortion, homosexuality, war, immigration—everything looks different when you know the people involved and feel the emotions directly.</p>
<p>That’s true of genetic testing, too. Two days ago in the <em>New York Times</em>, Gina Kolata told <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/04/health/ethics-questions-arise-as-genetic-testing-of-embryos-increases.html">the story of Amanda Kalinsky</a>, a 30-year-old woman who learned at age 26 that she would eventually die a slow, awful, premature death from a genetic disease. At first she assumed she couldn’t in good conscience bear&nbsp; children, since they might inherit the gene. But then she learned that she could create IVF embryos with her husband, test them for the gene, and implant the ones that would be disease-free.</p>
<p>Embryo screening is a double-edged technology, full of grim possibilities. One worrisome trend is the spread of this practice from diseases that strike children to diseases that strike adults. It’s logical to question how far we should go in weeding out lesser or less immediate defects. But it’s pretty hard to sustain that abstract objection in the face of a story like this one, particularly when you see the doomed woman with her small children, none of whom would exist without the technology.</p>
<p>I found the story intensely moving. And then I read this line about the director of the IVF clinic involved in the case: “Dr. Tur-Kaspa said that after having done the procedure a thousand times, he cannot think of a gene he would not test for if a patient requested it.”</p>
<p>That line chilled me. It exposed another side of the moral effect of experience. Getting close to a case like this one, even as a reader, can open your eyes. But being in the middle of a dozen cases, and then a hundred, and then a thousand, can do something else. It can pull you so far into the routine that you lose perspective. You can no longer imagine a case in which you wouldn’t screen the embryo.</p>
<p>Experience teaches. And then, after a while, experience numbs. Beware.</p>Thu, 06 Feb 2014 04:41:33 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/05/embryo_testing_does_personal_experience_make_you_morally_wise.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-06T04:41:33ZNews and PoliticsMorality and Embryo Testing: Experience Teaches, Experience Numbs244140205001ivfWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/05/embryo_testing_does_personal_experience_make_you_morally_wise.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe morality of embryo testing: Experience teaches, and then experience numbs. Beware.Morality and Embryo Testing: Experience Teaches, Experience NumbsPhoto by Sandy Huffaker/Getty ImagesHuman embryos in a dish at an IVF clinic, Feb. 28, 2007.Abortion, Contraception, and the Economyhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/04/abortion_economics_did_the_recession_increase_contraception_and_reduce_abortion.html
<p>Today I wrote about the debate over <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/abortion_rate_decline_guttmacher_s_study_vindicates_birth_control_and_pro.html">who gets credit for the declining abortion rate</a>. Pro-lifers think they did it, by <a href="http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/02/new-guttmacher-study-ignores-impact-of-public-debate-regarding-rights-of-unborn-on-abortion-rates">persuading people that abortion is the wrong choice</a>. Pro-choicers think birth control did it, by <a href="http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/press-releases/decline-abortion-rate-highlights-value-affordable-accessible-birth-control-planned-parenthood-s-42603.htm">reducing the number of unintended pregnancies</a> that lead to abortion. The evidence for the latter factor is stronger, though pro-lifers should take heart and realign their priorities accordingly, from legislation to education. You can read the whole article <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2014/02/abortion_rate_decline_guttmacher_s_study_vindicates_birth_control_and_pro.html">here</a>.</p>
<p>But the most persuasive explanation for the decline is neither of these. It’s the economy. As researchers from the Guttmacher Institute point out in <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/psrh.46e0414.pdf">their analysis of the data</a>,</p>
<blockquote>
Studies have found that trends in unemployment between 2007 and 2009 were accompanied by a drop in the fertility rate and, more specifically, that states that experienced greater economic distress had larger birthrate declines during this period. These findings are substantiated by a national survey of women conducted in 2009, which found that 44% wanted to delay or limit childbearing because of the economy … Presumably, then, more women and couples were making conscious decisions to avoid pregnancy and so resumed or continued using contraceptives.
</blockquote>
<p>The analysis continues:</p>
<blockquote>
Furthermore, while the majority of women want to avoid pregnancy, multiple studies have found that approximately one in five are ambivalent, and that pregnancy ambivalence is associated with inconsistent contraceptive use. During a period of prolonged economic uncertainty, women and couples may be more resistant to an “accidental” or “surprise” pregnancy, and hence more consistent in their contraceptive use.
</blockquote>
<p>One reason I find this explanation persuasive is that it fits the data. Another reason is that it makes practical sense. A third reason is that it isn’t being promoted by either side. It doesn’t come up because it suits somebody’s agenda. It comes up because it’s what the evidence supports.</p>
<p>If this is the main reason for the recent decline in abortions (and I’m not ruling out the others—it’s a no-brainer that <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2006/09/where_the_rubber_meets_roe.html">birth control reduces the need for abortion</a>), this raises difficult questions for me and for <a href="http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/">Ross Douthat</a>, with whom I’ve sometimes <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_book_club/features/2012/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion_faith_and_american_culture_.html">debated these issues</a>. Douthat is a pro-natalist. He opposes abortion, worries about underpopulation, and believes society should encourage procreation, not birth control. The Guttmacher analysis challenges this worldview. It suggests that what has driven down the abortion rate in recent years is anti-natalism. Fear of procreation has increased fear of pregnancy, which in turn has increased contraceptive use and reduced the number of abortions.</p>
<p>But this raises problems for me, too. Last week, Douthat suggested that&nbsp;<em>Roe v. Wade</em>, by enabling women to avert the previously intolerable consequences of unintended pregnancy, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/douthat-more-imperfect-unions.html">weakened society’s insistence that a man should marry a woman</a> if he wanted sex with her. I criticized this argument as <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.html">harsh and punitive</a>. But the Guttmacher analysis implies that harsh, punitive consequences—the unaffordability of bearing a child in a difficult economy—have achieved a moral objective I’ve <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22saletan.html">long advocated</a>. They have made people <a href="http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/responsibility/essays/saletan.aspx">more diligent about using contraception</a>.</p>
<p>For people like me, the question is how to sustain this diligence in the absence of economic pressure. I’m not sure how to accomplish that. I’d welcome your ideas.</p>Tue, 04 Feb 2014 18:41:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/04/abortion_economics_did_the_recession_increase_contraception_and_reduce_abortion.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-04T18:41:00ZNews and PoliticsDid the Bad Economy Drive Down the Abortion Rate?244140204001contraceptionabortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/04/abortion_economics_did_the_recession_increase_contraception_and_reduce_abortion.htmlfalsefalsefalseDid the bad economy drive down the abortion rate?Did the Bad Economy Drive Down the Abortion Rate?Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty ImagesA homeless woman panhandles in New York City on June 20, 2011.Israel’s Boycott Bluffhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/03/netanyahu_vs_kerry_will_boycotts_make_israel_negotiate_with_the_palestinians.html
<p>The Middle East peace process, such as it is, has blown up again. This time the blowup isn’t between Israel and Palestine. It’s between Israel and the United States. On Saturday, speaking at the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry <a href="http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/02/221134.htm">warned</a> that talks between Israel and Palestine must be taken seriously and must show progress, in part because</p>
<blockquote>
for Israel there’s an increasing de-legitimization campaign that has been building up. People are very sensitive to it. There are talk of boycotts and other kinds of things. … Today’s status quo absolutely, to a certainty, I promise you 100 percent, cannot be maintained. It’s not sustainable. It’s illusionary. There’s a momentary prosperity, there’s a momentary peace. Last year, not one Israeli was killed by a Palestinian from the West Bank. This year, unfortunately, there’s been an uptick in some violence. But the fact is the status quo will change if there is failure. So everybody has a stake in trying to find the pathway to success.
</blockquote>
<p>On Sunday, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs rebuked Kerry, calling his remarks <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/03/world/middleeast/netanyahu-criticizes-kerry-over-boycott-remarks.html">“unfair” and “intolerable.”</a> He insisted that “Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu <a href="http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokestart020214.aspx">elaborated</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
Attempts to impose a boycott on the State of Israel are immoral and unjust. Moreover, they will not achieve their goal. First, they cause the Palestinians to adhere to their intransigent positions and thus push peace further away. Second, no pressure will cause me to concede the vital interests of the State of Israel, especially the security of Israel's citizens. For both of these reasons, threats to boycott the State of Israel will not achieve their goal.
</blockquote>
<p>Whatever you think of Kerry, Netanyahu, Israel, or the Palestinian Authority, this statement makes no sense. Netanyahu claims that the boycotts and boycott threats embolden the Palestinians to reject compromise in their talks with Israel. That’s a completely rational argument: The Palestinians will respond to the incentives imposed by the boycotts. He makes a <a href="http://www.pmo.gov.il/English/MediaCenter/Spokesman/Pages/spokeruhani230114.aspx">similar argument about Iran</a>: “The goal of the Iranian ayatollahs' regime … is to ease sanctions without conceding on their program to produce nuclear weapons. Therefore, the international community must not go astray.” Keep up the pressure, says the prime minister. It’s working.</p>
<p>At the same time, Netanyahu denies that Israel will respond to such incentives. “No pressure will cause me to concede the vital interests of the State of Israel,” he vows.</p>
<p>One of the wisest things I ever heard is this: You can learn more about someone from what he says about others than from what he says about himself. When a person tries to explain the behavior of others, he often projects his mentality onto them, inadvertently exposing how he really thinks. That’s what Netanyahu is doing here. He’s right that incentives influence one’s willingness to compromise. He’s right that this applies to Palestinians and Iranians. What he’s trying to hide is that it also applies to Israelis. We aren’t that different, no matter how hard we pretend that we are.</p>Mon, 03 Feb 2014 13:02:23 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/03/netanyahu_vs_kerry_will_boycotts_make_israel_negotiate_with_the_palestinians.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-02-03T13:02:23ZNews and PoliticsNetanyahu Says Boycott Threats Influence Palestinians But Not Israelis. He’s Bluffing.244140203001israelWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/02/03/netanyahu_vs_kerry_will_boycotts_make_israel_negotiate_with_the_palestinians.htmlfalsefalsefalseNetanyahu says boycott threats influence Palestinians and Iranians but not Israelis. He’s bluffing.Netanyahu Says Boycott Threats Influence Palestinians But Not Israelis. He’s Bluffing.Photo by MENAHEM KAHANA/AFP/Getty ImagesIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his adversaries are susceptible to pressure, but he isn't.Watch the Watchershttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/31/tsa_body_scanners_let_s_turn_airport_surveillance_on_the_security_officers.html
<p>Today, <em>Politico Magazine</em> published a <a href="http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/tsa-screener-confession-102912.html">tell-all expose of the Transportation Security Administration</a> by a former TSA officer. The article ridicules airport security, depicting scanners as futile and humiliating. But if you read between the lines, you can learn useful lessons about how to craft and deploy technology that respects privacy and protects us from the worst in human nature. Surveillance technology isn’t evil. It just has to be well-designed. In fact, what we need is more of it, not less.</p>
<p>The author portrays TSA as a bureaucracy of fools, bullies, and lechers. Some of his aspersions are demonstrably unfair. He derides the agency for making him “confiscate nail clippers,” neglecting to mention that TSA has tried to shed its rules against sharp objects, even to the point of <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/03/knives_planes_and_tsa_the_case_for_allowing_pocket_knives_in_carry_on_bags.html">allowing knives on planes</a>—and that it has to enforce these rules only because Congress insists. He also insinuates that the amount of radiation emitted by the scanners is dangerous. He says TSA told its employees “we would just have to take their word for it” that the levels were acceptable. Again, he omits the rest of the story: TSA has provided <a href="http://blog.tsa.gov/2011/05/radiation-retest-results-are-in.html">peer-reviewed evidence</a> that the radiation levels are safe.</p>
<p>The one former officer who clearly comes across as reckless, cynical, and prurient is the author. He offers no evidence for his insinuations about the radiation. He tells puerile jokes, revels in tales of ogling, explains how to sneak a gun through the scanners, and mocks any TSA employee who “believes his or her job is a matter of national security.”</p>
<p>It’s tempting to dismiss the whole article as untrustworthy. But that would be a mistake. The fact that TSA employed such a person for five years—like the fact that the National Security Agency made its files accessible to Edward Snowden, whom it now depicts as a cunning schemer—underscores the importance of designing systems to protect us from such people. That’s the operating principle that has kept this country free for 238 years: Men aren’t angels, and our government has to be organized accordingly, to thwart the worst in human nature. In the case of airport security, this TSA memoir shows that our surveillance systems already incorporate some features that impede abuse—and that they need more.</p>
<p>The author jokes about slang terms used by fellow male officers to describe attractive women. He describes an “Image Operator” (I.O.) room where officers, staring at scanner images on screens, saw passengers’ most intimate contours:</p>
<blockquote>
Many of the images we gawked at were of overweight people, their every fold and dimple on full awful display. Piercings of every kind were visible. Women who’d had mastectomies were easy to discern—their chests showed up on our screens as dull, pixelated regions.
</blockquote>
<p>But what’s just as notable (though glossed over because it doesn’t serve the author’s argument) is how this recipe for abuse—prurient viewers, revealing images—was disrupted by the design of the technology. Notice what the author doesn’t describe: the passenger’s face. That’s because the system was <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2007/03/digital_penetration.html">engineered to blur this part of the body</a>. The officer who sees you on the monitor never sees you in the flesh, and the officer who sees you in the flesh never sees you on the monitor. So the one who sees you naked never knows who you are, and the one who knows who you are never sees you naked.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe it, check out the scanner images posted with the article. The passenger’s head looks like a bowling pin dimly visible through fog. The author reports, “One of us in the I.O. room would occasionally identify a passenger as female, only to have the officers out on the checkpoint floor radio back that it was actually a man.” He tells this story to make the system look sordid. But what it really shows is how blind the image analysts were to the passenger’s identity.</p>
<p>The author also complains that “the I.O. room at O’Hare had a bank of monitors, each with a disabled keyboard.” He ridicules the disabled keyboard, saying it “perfectly summed up my relationship with the TSA,” and he jokes that to relieve his boredom, “I phantom-typed passages on the dumb keys: Shakespeare and Nabokov and Baudelaire.” But what’s dumb, if not dishonest, is the author’s failure to note that there’s a good reason to disable such keyboards: to fulfill TSA’s pledge that the viewing officer “<a href="http://blog.tsa.gov/2013/01/body-scanner-resolution-rooms-conduct.html">cannot store, print, transmit or save the image</a>.”<br /> The author does, however, identify one loophole in the abuse-prevention system. The I.O. room, he reports,</p>
<blockquote>
was the one place in the airport free of surveillance cameras, since the TSA had assured the public that no nude images of passengers would be stored on any recording device, closed circuit cameras included. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
All the old, crass stereotypes about race and genitalia size thrived on our secure government radio channels. There were other types of bad behavior in the I.O. room—I personally witnessed quite a bit of fooling around, in every sense of the phrase. Officers who were dating often conspired to get assigned to the I.O. room at the same time, where they analyzed the nude images with one eye apiece, at best.
</blockquote>
<p>In other words, the place in the airport where abuse was most likely to happen was the one place that <em>wasn’t</em> under surveillance. TSA, in the name of privacy, had failed to surveil itself. The key to preventing abuse isn’t less monitoring, but more.</p>
<p>If you don’t believe it, read the author’s account of an incident four years ago:</p>
<blockquote>
In 2009, one of my friends had run her male colleague through a carry-on X-Ray machine. (It was a slow night.) When management happened upon video footage of the episode, they were both fired.
</blockquote>
<p>Good. The system worked. Now let’s put those cameras in the I.O. room. They don’t need to face the monitors. They need to face the officers. To protect the public, the police must be policed, and the watchers must be watched.</p>Fri, 31 Jan 2014 20:32:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/31/tsa_body_scanners_let_s_turn_airport_surveillance_on_the_security_officers.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-31T20:32:00ZNews and PoliticsAre TSA Officers Mocking Our Body Scans? Let’s Turn the Cameras On Them.244140131001surveillanceWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/31/tsa_body_scanners_let_s_turn_airport_surveillance_on_the_security_officers.htmlfalsefalsefalseA former TSA officer’s mockery of airport surveillance shows we need more of it, not less.Are TSA Officers Mocking Our Body Scans? Let’s Turn the Cameras On Them.Photo by Kevork Djansezian/Getty ImagesTSA officers using a body scanner at Los Angeles International Airport, Nov. 2, 2013.Is Water More Dangerous Than Pot?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/30/tsa_marijuana_and_liquid_explosives_is_water_more_dangerous_than_pot.html
<p>“Among the many oddities that have arisen from marijuana legalization in Washington and Colorado is this: It can be easier to get through airport security with a bag of weed than a bottle of water.”</p>
<p>That’s the opening sentence of this morning’s <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/wash-colo-have-few-ways-stop-carry-weed">Associated Press dispatch</a> from Colorado. The article goes on to explain: “The Transportation Security Administration makes travelers empty their water bottles, but when agents encounter personal amounts of marijuana at security checkpoints, they typically don't call the DEA or FBI.”</p>
<p>This is madness, right?</p>
<p>Wrong. It’s perfectly sane. In fact, it illustrates how strange the world can seem to us when our intuitions and traditions are replaced by rationality.</p>
<p>TSA limits carry-on containers of any liquid, including water, to 100 milliliters, i.e., <a href="http://www.tsa.gov/traveler-information/3-1-1-carry-ons">3.4 ounces</a>. That’s because of a 2006 plot to blow up planes using “<a href="http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2008/09/08/uk-2006-liquid-explosives-plot-trial-overview">liquid explosives disguised as commonly consumed UK beverages</a>.” In 2010, TSA administrator John Pistole indicated that the plot may have involved “<a href="http://blog.tsa.gov/2010/08/talk-to-tsa-response-are-liquids-really.html">sodas and water</a>.” The problem, he explained, “is that liquid explosives don't look any different than regular liquids on the X-ray monitor.”</p>
<p>Why, then, doesn’t TSA forbid all water? In 2008, then-TSA administrator Kip Hawley reported that lab tests determined the 100 milliliter threshold adequately “<a href="http://blog.tsa.gov/2008/02/more-on-liquid-rules-why-we-do-things.html">limits the effect of, and even the ability of, a detonation</a>.” He added: “We try to prohibit the minimum possible from a security standpoint. Also, the consequence of banning all liquids is a large increase in the number of checked bags, which creates its own issues.”</p>
<p>In other words, airport security involves tradeoffs. Every second TSA officers have to spend on marginal threats such as <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/03/knives_planes_and_tsa_the_case_for_allowing_pocket_knives_in_carry_on_bags.html">pocket knives</a> and small liquid containers is a second they’re distracted from more serious possibilities.</p>
<p>That’s why it can be, and should be, easier to get through airport security with a bag of weed than a bottle of water. Unless you’ve figured out how to disguise a plane-exploding bomb as an ounce of pot, your baggie isn’t worth a TSA officer’s time.</p>Thu, 30 Jan 2014 19:37:57 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/30/tsa_marijuana_and_liquid_explosives_is_water_more_dangerous_than_pot.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-30T19:37:57ZNews and PoliticsIs Water More Dangerous Than Pot?244140130001marijuanaterrorismWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/30/tsa_marijuana_and_liquid_explosives_is_water_more_dangerous_than_pot.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs water more dangerous than pot? At airport security, yes.Is Water More Dangerous Than Pot?Photo by INDRANIL MUKHERJEE/AFP/Getty ImagesThe French president's ex-partner drinking a bottle of water in India.The Mysterious Disappearance of Inequalityhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/29/obama_state_of_the_union_2014_why_he_talked_about_work_instead_of_inequality.html
<p>Today I posted an analysis of Obama’s State of the Union. You can <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2014/01/obama_s_state_of_the_union_message_the_free_market_vs_the_work_ethic.html">read it here</a> if you like. The takeaway is that Obama talked a lot more about rewarding “work” than about rectifying “inequality.” The free market and the work ethic don’t always overlap. In recent years, we’ve seen growth without much payoff for workers. Obama is converting that gap into a wedge issue.</p>
<p>Where did this tactical shift come from? And why now? Nearly two months ago, Obama talked about many of the same issues in a <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/12/04/remarks-president-economic-mobility">speech at the Center for American Progress</a>. He spoke just as passionately about rewarding work. But he also talked about inequality. That’s the word that disappeared from the State of the Union. In the CAP speech, Obama used the word <em>inequality</em> more than 30 times. In the State of the Union, he used it only three times.</p>
<p>On the left, inequality has always been a fundamental concern. My friend Tim Noah wrote a <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_great_divergence/features/2010/the_united_states_of_inequality/introducing_the_great_divergence.html">terrific series on it in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong></a>, and an <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Divergence-Americas-Inequality/dp/1608196356?tag=slatmaga-20">even better book about it</a>. (For a different take, see <a href="http://www.amazon.com/End-Equality-Second-Mickey-Kaus/dp/0465098290?tag=slatmaga-20">another great book</a>—this one’s by the excellent Mickey Kaus, who <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/kausfiles.html">represented the right wing of <strong><em>Slate</em></strong></a>, such as it was, before that title fell, even more preposterously, to me.) Obama’s extensive remarks on this subject at CAP show that he shares this concern. But they also reflect his worries about the politics of the word.</p>
<p>Many times in the CAP speech, Obama added the word <em>mobility</em> to make clear that his message went beyond inequality. In fact, the White House titled the speech, “Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility,” even though Obama mentioned inequality almost twice as often as mobility. At one point, he paused to explain the difficult politics of inequality:</p>
<blockquote>
If we’re going to take on growing inequality and try to improve upward mobility for all people, we’ve got to move beyond the false notion that this is an issue exclusively of minority concern. And we have to reject a politics that suggests any effort to address it in a meaningful way somehow pits the interests of a deserving middle class against those of an undeserving poor in search of handouts.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Second, we need to dispel the myth that the goals of growing the economy and reducing inequality are necessarily in conflict, when they should actually work in concert. &nbsp;We know from our history that our economy grows best from the middle out, when growth is more widely shared. And we know that beyond a certain level of inequality, growth actually slows altogether.
<strong></strong>
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a pretty shrewd analysis of why inequality is hard to talk about. A lot of people think that if you try to equalize wealth, you’ll wreck the economy. And a lot of them think you’re talking about handouts for slackers.</p>
<p>And there, I suspect, is the solution to the mystery of what happened to the word <em>inequality</em>. In the CAP speech, Obama was explaining to liberals why it’s a hard word to talk about. In the State of the Union, addressing the public as a whole, he took his own advice. He dropped the word, and he replaced it with the language of work.</p>Wed, 29 Jan 2014 17:13:56 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/29/obama_state_of_the_union_2014_why_he_talked_about_work_instead_of_inequality.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-29T17:13:56ZNews and PoliticsThe Mystery of Obama’s Speech: What Happened To the Word “Inequality”?244140129001inequalityWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/29/obama_state_of_the_union_2014_why_he_talked_about_work_instead_of_inequality.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe mystery of Obama’s speech: What happened to the word “inequality”?The Mystery of Obama’s Speech: What Happened To the Word “Inequality”?Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty ImagesA demonstration against cuts in unemployment benefits, Oakland, Calif., July 11, 2012.The Case Against Reproductive Freedomhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.html
<p>Is reproductive choice—the freedom to have sex without the full natural risk of pregnancy—dangerous? Should it be legally curtailed? Should it be culturally discouraged? Are we competent, as individuals, to manage it?</p>
<p>Ross Douthat raises these questions—some explicitly, some implicitly—in <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/26/opinion/sunday/douthat-more-imperfect-unions.html">his latest <em>New York Times</em> column</a>. He suggests that banning second-trimester abortions, among other things, might help to restore a culture of marriage. My colleague Jessica Grose <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_on_marriage_s_decline_blame_no_fault_divorce_abortion_and_pop.html">rebuts him in <strong><em>Slate</em></strong></a>. So does <a href="http://www.thenation.com/blog/178092/no-ross-douthat-restricting-abortion-wont-shore-marriage">Michelle Goldberg in the <strong><em>Nation</em></strong></a>. But let’s take this debate one step further. Douthat isn’t just challenging abortion. He’s challenging the whole idea of letting women decide whether sex leads to parenthood.</p>
<p>Douthat argues that “the power <em>Roe v. Wade</em> gave women over reproduction sometimes came at the expense of power in relationships.” As evidence, he cites a <a href="http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof">1996 Brookings Institution monograph</a> by George Akerlof and Janet Yellen. (Douthat puts Yellen’s name first, but Akerlof is the first author on the paper, so it isn’t clear what Yellen’s role was.) Here’s the part of the paper Douthat quotes, in truncated form, to support his thesis:</p>
<blockquote>
What links liberalized contraception and abortion with the declining shotgun marriage rate? Before 1970, the stigma of unwed motherhood was so great that few women were willing to bear children outside of marriage. The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand. …
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
The increased availability of contraception and abortion made shotgun weddings a thing of the past. Women who were willing to get an abortion or who reliably used contraception no longer found it necessary to condition sexual relations on a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy. These women feared, correctly, that if they refused sexual relations, they would risk losing their partners.
</blockquote>
<p>Let’s notice a few significant things about this argument. First, the paper explicitly cites contraception as part of the problem. Second, what made the pre-contraceptive-liberalization era effective, in terms of enforcing a culture of marriage, was the suffering a woman faced if she got pregnant. The basic reasoning here is that what made the good old days salutary was the absence of protection from severe, painful consequences.</p>
<p>Third, these consequences, in the form of stigma, applied only if the woman had the baby. If she aborted it before her pregnancy showed—and if she suffered no complications anyone else knew about—she could avoid the stigma. In other words, the stigma <em>encouraged</em> abortion once the woman discovered she was pregnant. So the argument doesn’t apply equally to contraception and abortion. It applies much more clearly to contraception.</p>
<p>Fourth, the argument puts the weight of enforcement on the woman. She’s the one who has to exact the man’s promise to marry her if he impregnates her. If she fails—that is, if <em>he</em> fails—she’s the one who faces the consequences. And fifth, all she’s getting is a promise. As women throughout history have learned, that promise is often worthless.</p>
<p>The Brookings paper continues:</p>
<blockquote>
Advances in reproductive technology eroded the custom of shotgun marriage in another way. Before the sexual revolution, women had less freedom, but men were expected to assume responsibility for their welfare. Today women are more free to choose, but men have afforded themselves the comparable option. &quot;If she is not willing to have an abortion or use contraception,&quot; the man can reason, &quot;why should I sacrifice myself to get married?&quot; By making the birth of the child the physical choice of the mother, the sexual revolution has made marriage and child support a social choice of the father.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Many men have changed their attitudes regarding the responsibility for unplanned pregnancies. As one contributor to the Internet wrote recently to the Dads' Rights Newsgroup, &quot;Since the decision to have the child is solely up to the mother, I don't see how both parents have responsibility to that child.&quot; That attitude, of course, makes it far less likely that the man will offer marriage as a solution to a couple's pregnancy quandary, leaving the mother either to raise the child or to give it up for adoption.
</blockquote>
<p>Here, the argument shifts from economic rationality (how men and women behave under the threat of painful consequences) to moral beliefs about the division of responsibilities within a relationship. The first of these two paragraphs focuses on the woman’s responsibility. If she has the freedom to prevent the pregnancy—but fails to do so—the consequences are on her, and the man should be free to walk away. The authors don’t endorse this conclusion, and neither does Douthat. They simply observe that this is how many men reacted to the rise of liberalized contraception and abortion.</p>
<p>The second paragraph focuses on distributional justice within relationships. The argument here is that if the woman gets to decide unilaterally whether to use contraception, have an abortion, or carry a pregnancy to term, then the man, reciprocally, should get to decide whether to help raise the child. Again, this isn’t Douthat’s view. But it’s part of the cultural change he attributes to the rise of reproductive freedom.</p>
<p>When you look at the totality of the argument, what stands out most strikingly is that none of it is about protecting unborn life. All of it is, in Douthat’s words, about “the power <em>Roe v. Wade</em> gave women over reproduction.” It’s not an argument against killing babies. It’s an argument against empowering women to separate sex from parenthood.</p>
<p>Some people despise Douthat for entertaining such ideas. I’m not one of them. We need socially conservative intellectuals to point out socially conservative truths—which, yes, do exist—and <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/the_book_club/features/2012/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion/ross_douthat_s_bad_religion_faith_and_american_culture_.html">that’s what Douthat does</a>. In this case, he has swept himself toward a position I don’t think he has the stomach to defend. The rest of us—those who support reproductive freedom—have a different problem to sort out. If we don’t want to go back to the bad old days, how do we address the decline of marriage? How do we build and preserve stable families in an era of sexual liberty?</p>
<p>Many liberals think money is the sole problem. They believe that if we bolster employment and incomes, our cultural woes will be solved. I disagree. I think Douthat is right that we need cultural corrections, too. One of those corrections, in my view, is an ethic of sexual responsibility. My version would be almost as strict as Douthat’s. But it wouldn’t reject contraception. It would incorporate it.</p>
<p>Here’s the short version. First, for men: If you put your sperm anywhere near a woman’s reproductive tract, you had better be prepared to raise a child with her. Your ejaculation is your signature on a contract authorizing her to carry any resulting pregnancy to term and to enlist you as the father. If you aren’t prepared to sign that contract, ejaculate somewhere else. Don’t complain later that you weren’t consulted about subsequent decisions. The only decision you get is the one at the outset.</p>
<p>For women: Protect yourself. Unless you’re prepared to be a mother, never have any kind of sex that can lead to pregnancy without using effective birth control. (The same goes for men—even more so, since they have no right to intervene once they’ve deposited sperm.) Do this for yourself, for your partner, and for the child you might conceive. Contraception is awesome. It empowers you to postpone maternity till you’re properly situated. Using that power isn’t just a right. It’s a responsibility.</p>
<p>Some of you might view this advice as too austere or prudish. If so, let’s hear your alternative. If we don’t want to go back to restricting reproductive freedom, we’d better learn how to manage it wisely.</p>Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:31:54 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-27T22:31:54ZNews and PoliticsRoss Douthat Says Reproductive Freedom Has Hurt Marriage. Is He Right?244140127002contraceptionabortionbirth controlWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ross_douthat_s_case_against_contraception_is_reproductive_choice_too_dangerous.htmlfalsefalsefalseRoss Douthat says women’s power over procreation has undermined marriage. Is he right?Ross Douthat Says Reproductive Freedom Has Hurt Marriage. Is He Right?Photo by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesA pro-condom demonstrator in New York City, June 8, 2011.Ted Cruz’s Shutdown Revisionismhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ted_cruz_government_shutdown_his_revisionist_attempt_to_blame_obama_and.html
<p>Yesterday on <em><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-26-2014-cruz-schumer-mccaul/">Face the Nation</a></em>, Bob Schieffer asked Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, “Would you ever conceive of threatening to shut down the government again?” Cruz replied that Schieffer had his facts wrong:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong>Cruz:</strong> I didn't threaten to shut down the government the last time. I don't think we should ever shut down the government. I repeatedly voted to fund the federal government.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Schieffer:</strong> Senator, if you didn't threaten the shut down the government, who was it that did? ...
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Cruz:</strong> It was Harry Reid and President Obama. … The reason we had a shutdown—Look, the Democrats were very candid. I know they told you, they said, “We think the shutdown benefits us politically.” Right now the Democrats are telling you that they want another shutdown, because they think it benefits them politically. Why is it hard to understand that they forced the shutdown, when they think it benefits them politically?”
</blockquote>
<p>That’s a rational argument. The politicians who saw the shutdown as politically advantageous were the ones who caused it. So says Ted Cruz.</p>
<p>But what was Cruz saying during the shutdown? Here’s what he told Republican senators on Oct. 9, 2013, according to <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-poll-shows-gop-gained-in-fight-over-obamacare-despite-shutdown/article/2537066">David Drucker’s astute reporting</a> in the <em>Washington Examiner</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
Sen. Ted Cruz during a closed-door lunch on Wednesday argued to his Republican colleagues that the campaign he led to defund Obamacare has bolstered the GOP’s political position in dealing with the government shutdown.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Republicans who attended the weekly lunch hosted by Senate conservatives confirmed that Cruz presented a poll that the Texan paid for. Cruz’ pollster, Chris Perkins, was there for a portion of the discussion to help walk members through the poll and discuss the party's messaging strategy.
</blockquote>
<p>Drucker’s report illustrates the truth about the shutdown: Politicians on both sides—Obama, Reid, and dozens of Tea Party Republicans in the House and Senate, led by Cruz—thought the fiscal standoff over Obamacare would benefit their party. That’s why the standoff happened.</p>
<p>When Cruz advises you to blame the politicians who thought they would benefit, that’s generally sound advice. What he neglects to mention is that he was among them. In fact, he was the leader on the Republican side. As <a href="http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/charles-krauthammer-ted-cruz-obamacare-98144.html">Charles Krauthammer patiently explained</a> at the time, Cruz was <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/10/shutdown_polls_how_markets_and_election_fears_are_forcing_republicans_to.html">disastrously wrong</a> about the political fallout.</p>
<p>Now Cruz is recasting his ineptitude as innocence. He’s asking you to believe that because the shutdown hurt Republicans politically, he never wanted it. He wants you to follow his logic instead of researching what he actually did. Logic is useful, but it’s not enough. Always check the record.</p>Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:26:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ted_cruz_government_shutdown_his_revisionist_attempt_to_blame_obama_and.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-27T13:26:00ZNews and PoliticsTed Cruz Played Politics With the Shutdown and Lost. Now He’s Feigning Innocence.244140127001government shutdowndebt ceilingWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/27/ted_cruz_government_shutdown_his_revisionist_attempt_to_blame_obama_and.htmlfalsefalsefalseTed Cruz played politics with the shutdown and lost. Now he's feigning innocence.Ted Cruz Played Politics With the Shutdown and Lost. Now He’s Feigning Innocence.Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty ImagesSen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, addresses a conservative audience on Oct. 11, 2013, two days after presenting his shutdown strategy poll to other Republican senators.Should Gays Be Allowed to Adopt, but Only if They’re Married?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/24/gay_adoption_polls_should_same_sex_couples_be_allowed_to_adopt_but_only.html
<p>Last week, a <a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57391605-78/marriage-sex-percent-state.html.csp">poll in Utah</a> made <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/16/poll_utah_utah_now_split_evenly_on_whether_gay_marriage_should_be_legal.html">national news</a>. A lot of folks (<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/17/utah_gay_marriage_polls_are_civil_unions_the_path_to_same_sex_marriage.html">including me</a>) were excited, alarmed, or intrigued because the survey, published by the <em>Salt Lake Tribune</em>, showed a big increase in support for same-sex marriage in one of the country’s most conservative states.</p>
<p>But that’s not the most interesting thing in this poll. The most interesting thing is this: A lot of Utahns think same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, but only if the couples are married.</p>
<p>The numbers, presented by the <em>Tribune</em>, are shown in the graphic below. When respondents were asked, “Should unmarried same-sex couples in Utah be allowed to adopt children,” 64 percent said no. Only 26 percent said yes. But when respondents were asked, “Should married same-sex couples in Utah be allowed to adopt children,” they split evenly: Forty-five percent said yes, 45 percent said no.</p>
<p>The <em>Tribune</em> didn’t cross-tabulate these answers, but we can do a quick logical breakdown of the 45 percent who said yes to adoption rights for married same-sex couples. They consist of (a) people who said no to adoption rights for unmarried same-sex couples and (b) people who said yes to adoption rights for unmarried same-sex couples. (Ten percent said “not sure” to each question—let’s assume those were the same folks both times.) The latter group, (b), can’t be greater than 26 percent of the entire sample. Therefore, at least 19 percent of the sample said that same-sex couples should be allowed to adopt children, but only if they’re married.</p>
<p>This confounds the usual spectrum of thinking about same-sex relationships. The usual spectrum, assumed in <a href="http://www.washingtonpoll.org/pdf/same_sex.pdf">countless polls</a>, runs from (1) no legal recognition to (2) domestic partnerships that entail some, but not all, of the legal rights and obligations of marriage, to (3) civil unions that entail all the same legal rights and obligations, but avoid the word “marriage,” to (4) full marriage equality. Nonrecognition is thought to be the most conservative position. Marriage equality is thought to be the most liberal position.</p>
<p>What if that spectrum is wrong? Is marriage equality, coupled with lesser rights and obligations for unmarried partners, a more conservative position than allowing only partial legal recognition of same-sex relationships? Is that what 19 percent of Utahns are telling us?</p>
<p>As far as I can tell, nobody has asked such a question in a poll before. <a href="http://www.hrc.org/resources/entry/hrc-summer-2011-poll">Many surveys</a> have compared support levels for same-sex marriage with support levels for same-sex adoption rights—<a href="http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/31/two-thirds-of-democrats-now-support-gay-marriage-long-term-views-gay-marriage-adoption/">nationally</a> and in <a href="http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705395956/Poll-Utahns-favor-fairness-in-housing-and-jobs-oppose-gay-marriage-and-adoption.html?pg=all">Utah</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/washington-post-virginia-poll-gay-marriage-vs-gay-adoption/2011/05/10/AFtygwiG_blog.html">Virginia</a>, <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-23/french-lawmakers-pass-gay-marriage-bill-with-protests-continuing.html">France</a>, <a href="http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-70-of-israelis-support-recognition-for-gays/">Israel</a>, and <a href="http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/01/11/poll-strong-support-across-europe-for-equal-marriage-and-adoption-but-france-divided/">elsewhere</a>—but none of them seems to have offered respondents the option to accept marriage equality while continuing to discriminate between married and unmarried couples.</p>
<p>Four years ago a <a href="http://www.one-colorado.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/SurveyResults_BigBook.pdf">poll commissioned by One Colorado</a>, a gay rights group, asked residents in that state whether they supported giving certain “rights to committed gay and lesbian couples.” Among the options was “the right for committed same-sex couples to adopt children.” Fifty-six percent of Coloradans said yes to that question. Presumably, the sponsor or the pollsters (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and American Viewpoint) included the word “committed”—twice—because they thought it would produce a higher number.</p>
<p>Does commitment matter? Isn’t marriage a greater commitment than domestic partnership? If same-sex couples are free to marry, should those who marry be entitled to more privileges and benefits than those who don’t?</p>
<p>Look at what happened in Maryland last year. Once same-sex marriage became legal, the governor—a staunch liberal—informed state employees that <a href="http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-05-03/features/bs-md-domestic-benefits-20130502_1_domestic-partners-health-benefits-state-employees">they would no longer be allowed to get state health insurance benefits for their domestic partners</a>. To keep the benefits, same-sex couples would have to marry, just like opposite-sex couples.</p>
<p>Some gay rights advocates weren’t happy with that decision. &quot;It's really not the most equitable thing to be doing right now,&quot; said the executive director of Equality Maryland.</p>
<p>No. It isn’t equitable. It’s <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/11/08/civil_unions_once_a_second_class_option_as_more_states_approve_gay_marriage.html">discrimination on the basis of marital status</a>. But that’s a very different proposition from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.</p>
<p>Should state-granted benefits favor marriage over domestic partnership? Should adoption agencies favor married couples? Is everything conservatives said about straight marriage—that it’s better for kids and society—false about sexual orientation but true about marriage? Is this the kind of discrimination conservatives can accept? Is it the kind of discrimination liberals should embrace?</p>Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:19:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/24/gay_adoption_polls_should_same_sex_couples_be_allowed_to_adopt_but_only.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-24T16:19:00ZNews and PoliticsShould Gays Be Allowed to Adopt, but Only if They’re Married?244140124001gay marriagegay adoptionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/24/gay_adoption_polls_should_same_sex_couples_be_allowed_to_adopt_but_only.htmlfalsefalsefalseShould gays be allowed to adopt, but only if they’re married? 19 percent of Utahns say yes.Should Gays Be Allowed to Adopt, but Only if They’re Married?Photo by Yuri Cortez/AFP/Getty ImagesFelipe N&aacute;jera, a Mexican actor, with his adopted daughter. Last year, he and his partner became the first gay couple authorized by the Mexican government to adopt a minor.The Political Peril of Second-Trimester Abortionshttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/23/second_trimester_abortion_polls_even_pro_choicers_support_a_20_week_ban.html
<p>Yesterday I <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/22/abortion_polls_2014_do_most_americans_think_most_abortions_should_be_illegal.html">picked apart a poll</a>, commissioned by the National Right to Life Committee, that purported to show that most Americans thought most abortions should be illegal. Now a second poll, taken in December by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion and <a href="http://www.kofc.org/un/en/news/releases/detail/poll_marist-poll-abortion-restrictions2014.html">just released</a> by the Knights of Columbus, purports to show the same thing. It doesn’t prove that Americans think most abortions should be outlawed. But it does underscore a weakness in public support for abortion rights: Even the most pro-choice people aren’t sold on abortion rights beyond the first trimester.</p>
<p>According to the Knights’ summary, the poll shows that “84% of Americans believe abortion should be restricted (within the first three months of pregnancy, in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother) or never allowed at all.” This is a dubious claim, based on the same six-point scale I criticized yesterday. The poll question, mirroring the question used by the NRLC, overloaded the pro-life side of the spectrum. Of the six possible abortion policies respondents were offered, three were extremely strict: making abortion completely illegal, making it illegal except to save the woman’s life, and making it illegal except in cases of rape or incest. (See the table on <a href="http://www.kofc.org/un/en/resources/communications/marist-poll-abortion-restrictions2014.pdf">Page 3</a>.) As a result, respondents who were inclined to pick whatever option was in the middle ended up choosing between option No. 4 (the exceptions for rape and incest) and option No. 3 (allowing abortion for three months only). As in the NRLC poll, half the sample picked one of the middle two options, and these respondents split almost evenly between them. The Knights counted all of these folks as part of their 84 percent.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take these numbers seriously. Poll numbers are usually meaningful, even when they don’t mean exactly what the sponsors claim. In this case, the survey includes other data that add context and support to the six-point scale.</p>
<p>The poll analysis breaks down the pool of respondents into six categories. On one side are people who describe themselves as strongly or somewhat pro-life. On the other side are people who describe themselves as strongly or somewhat pro-choice. In the middle are people who sometimes think of themselves as pro-choice, and those who sometimes think of themselves as pro-life.</p>
<p>The group most worth studying is the strongly pro-choice constituency, comprising 27 percent of the whole sample. On the six-point scale, fewer than 10 percent of these respondents accepted any of the three options for banning elective abortions. But 49 percent accepted the option to allow abortion only in the first three months of pregnancy. That’s greater than the 41 percent who chose to allow abortion through the sixth month of pregnancy, as provided in <em>Roe v. Wade</em>. (See Page 4.)</p>
<p>Were these respondents, too, manipulated by the six-point scale? Were they unserious about drawing a line after the first trimester? Before you assume they were, consider some further data, shown on Page 7 of the report. Respondents were asked whether they supported banning abortions after 20 weeks (five months) of pregnancy except to save the life of the woman. Apparently, the question didn’t mention the rationale commonly offered for drawing a line at 20 weeks: <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/human_nature/2013/09/fetal_pain_studies_research_doesn_t_support_abortion_bans_at_20_weeks.html">fetal pain</a>. Nevertheless, 74 percent of the entire sample endorsed a ban at this point, including 62 percent of the strongly pro-choice group.</p>
<p>This question wasn’t based on a stacked six-point scale. It was an up-or-down referendum on banning abortion at 20 weeks. And even the most pro-choice people in the sample—a group that endorsed “using tax dollars to pay for a woman's abortion if she cannot afford it” (69 percent), opposed “requiring women who want an abortion to be shown an ultrasound image of her fetus at least 24 hours before the procedure” (only 25 percent supported this), and opposed “changing laws to allow for some restrictions on abortion” (only 37 percent supported this)—agreed with the 20-week ban.</p>
<p>If you still don’t think the abortion rights movement has a serious problem in the second trimester, check out Page 12 of the report. When they were asked at what point life begins, 53 percent of respondents picked conception. Another 15 percent chose “within the first three months.” Another 8 percent chose “between three and six months.” By six months, 76 percent believed life was underway. That’s pretty close to the 74 percent who endorsed a ban at 20 weeks.</p>
<p>The Knights poll isn’t alone in highlighting this pattern. The year-old <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx">Gallup poll</a> I <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/22/abortion_polls_2014_do_most_americans_think_most_abortions_should_be_illegal.html">linked to yesterday</a> shows the same thing. Sixty-one percent of U.S. adults in that survey said abortion should be legal in the first three months of pregnancy. Only 27 percent said it should be legal in the second three months.</p>
<p>This doesn’t mean that most Americans think most abortions should be illegal. According to the most recent government data, <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm">92 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester</a>. Beyond that point, abortions are much rarer and much harder to defend, both morally and politically. Without the protection of the courts, it’s difficult to see how they’d stay legal.</p>Thu, 23 Jan 2014 20:55:05 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/23/second_trimester_abortion_polls_even_pro_choicers_support_a_20_week_ban.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-23T20:55:05ZNews and PoliticsThe Political Peril of Second-Trimester Abortions244140123001abortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/23/second_trimester_abortion_polls_even_pro_choicers_support_a_20_week_ban.htmlfalsefalsefalseWill second-trimester abortions stay legal if the courts don't protect them? Polls suggest not.The Political Peril of Second-Trimester AbortionsPhoto by Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty ImagesAnti-abortion demonstrators protest at the Supreme Court on Jan. 22, 2014.Do Most Americans Think Most Abortions Should Be Illegal?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/22/abortion_polls_2014_do_most_americans_think_most_abortions_should_be_illegal.html
<p>Today is <em>Roe v. Wade</em> day. Every year on this anniversary, pro-lifers convene in Washington, D.C., to hold their “<a href="http://marchforlife.org/">March for Life</a>” and commemorate the day on which, 41 years ago, the Supreme Court declared a constitutional right to abortion. Every year, they have millions more abortions to lament. And almost every year, the weather for the march is bitterly cold.</p>
<p>To hearten themselves, pro-lifers like to tout polls suggesting that the public is on their side. Yesterday, in its annual report on this issue, <em><a href="http://www.nrlc.org/uploads/communications/stateofabortion2014.pdf">The State of Abortion in the United States</a></em>, the National Right to Life Committee issued a two-page summary of “Public Opinion &amp; Abortion.” The summary makes it look as though most Americans think most abortions should be illegal. But, on closer inspection, they don’t.</p>
<p>The NRLC report lays out the results of <a href="http://www.nrlc.org/communications/releases/2013/release042213/">a survey taken nearly a year ago</a> by its own pollster. Having paid for the poll, the NRLC got to choose the questions. <a href="http://www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/04/new-poll-shows-pro-life-majority-on-abortion/">Here’s the question</a> it chose:</p>
<blockquote>
Which of the following statements most closely describes your own position on the issue of abortion? Abortion should be …
<br /> a) Prohibited in all circumstances
<br /> b) Legal only to save the life of the mother
<br /> c) Legal only in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother
<br /> d) Legal for any reason, but not after the first three months of pregnancy
<br /> e) Legal for any reason, but not after the first six months of pregnancy
<br /> f) Legal for any reason at any time during a woman’s pregnancy
</blockquote>
<p>And here are the poll’s results, as presented in the report:</p>
<p>The report claims that these numbers show most Americans think abortion should be illegal in all but a few cases:</p>
<blockquote>
[O]nly 12% said their position—legal for any reason at any time during a woman’s pregnancy—matched that of the policy advocated by the abortion lobby. And only another 10% would allow abortion through the first six months of pregnancy. Thus, at most, 22% supported the effect of
<em>Roe v. Wade</em>. Another 20% would allow abortion but restrict it to the first trimester. A majority—53%—indicated that they would either restrict abortion in all circumstances, or allow it only when the mother’s life was in danger, or in cases of rape, incest—reasons which account for very few abortions.
</blockquote>
<p>This poll question, which the NRLC has been using for 25 years, is a textbook setup job. Here’s how it works. First, it overloads the pro-life side of the spectrum. Of the six possible abortion policies you’re offered, three are quite strict: completely illegal, illegal except to save the woman’s life, and illegal except in cases of rape or incest. So if you’re inclined to pick whatever option is in the middle, as many respondents are, there’s about a 50 percent chance you’re going to take option No. 3, the exceptions for rape and incest. Sure enough, half the sample picks option No. 3 or option No. 4, and option No. 3 gets most of these respondents. This pushes the overall pro-life number above 50 percent.</p>
<p>On the other side of the ledger, the current law in most states—legal abortion until about the sixth month of pregnancy—doesn’t get offered until option No. 5. So even if you pick the other middle option, No. 4 (as 20 percent of the sample did), you get counted <em>against</em> the 22 percent of respondents who, according to the NRLC, “supported the effect of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>.” By stacking the options, the poll essentially pushes the middle to the right.</p>
<p>When you stack the options differently, you get a different answer. Here’s what happened a year ago, when Gallup <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx">asked this question</a> for <em>USA Today</em>:</p>
<p>In this poll, the policy that NRLC presented as option No. 4—legal abortion through the first trimester—was option No. 1. Keeping abortion generally legal in the first trimester, but not the second, came across as the middle position. And that’s the position most respondents chose. In the NRLC poll, the combined percentage of respondents who said abortion should be generally legal at least in the first trimester was 42. In the Gallup/<em>USA Today</em> poll, it was 61.</p>
<p>To bolster its own survey, the NRLC cites a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/americans-abortion-views-steady-amid-gosnell-trial.aspx">different Gallup poll</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
The same Gallup poll asked respondents: “Do you think abortion should be 1) illegal in all circumstances; 2) legal in only a few circumstances; 3) legal under most circumstances; or 4) legal under any circumstances. This question comes closer to revealing American attitudes toward
<em>Roe</em> and
<em>Doe</em>’s regime of abortion revealing that only 26% agree with that position (legal under any circumstances), while 58% feel abortion should not be legal at all or legal in only a few circumstances.
</blockquote>
<p>Why does the NRLC show you this poll? Because it’s one of the few surveys taken in the last year that favors the NRLC’s position. Here are all the public polls I’ve been able to find that asked this question, with four possible answers, since the beginning of 2013:</p>
<p>The wording isn’t identical for every poll. To read the exact questions, you can click the links here for <a href="http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/01/09/poll-results-abortion/">YouGov</a>, <a href="http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AP-GfK-October-2013-Poll-Topline-Final_POLARIZE.pdf">AP/GfK</a>, <a href="http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1961">Quinnipiac</a>, <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2013/07/29/widening-regional-divide-over-abortion-laws/">Pew</a>, <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/07/majority-supports-legal-abortion-but-details-indicate-ambivalence/">ABC News/<em>Washington Post</em></a>, <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/162374/americans-abortion-views-steady-amid-gosnell-trial.aspx">Gallup</a>, <a href="http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm">CNN/ORC</a>, <a href="http://publicreligion.org/newsroom/2013/07/news-release-1-in-5-americans-are-religious-progressives/">PRRI/Brookings</a>, and <a href="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13266-July%20NBC-WSJ-Interview-Schedule.pdf">NBC News/<em>Wall Street Journal</em></a>. But they’re largely consistent. In 11 of the 14 samples, most Americans say that in most cases, abortion should be legal. In the last seven months, the record is 7–0.</p>
<p>I’m not trying to pick on the pro-lifers. Pro-choicers are <a href="http://www.bearingright.com/">just as clever</a> at manipulating their poll questions to get favorable results. So are other movements, organizations, industries, and political campaigns. As a citizen, your job is to recognize and take account of the manipulation. The people who pay for these polls get to choose what questions you’re asked. They don’t get to dictate how you read the results.</p>Wed, 22 Jan 2014 16:25:29 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/22/abortion_polls_2014_do_most_americans_think_most_abortions_should_be_illegal.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-22T16:25:29ZNews and PoliticsDo Most Americans Think Most Abortions Should Be Illegal? Nope. It’s a Pro-Life Spin Job.244140122001abortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/22/abortion_polls_2014_do_most_americans_think_most_abortions_should_be_illegal.htmlfalsefalsefalseDo most Americans think most abortions should be illegal? Nope. It's a pro-life spin job.Do Most Americans Think Most Abortions Should Be Illegal? Nope. It’s a Pro-Life Spin Job.Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesPro-life activists participate in the March for Life in 2002.Outsourcing the NSAhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/21/nsa_phone_metadata_retention_if_you_don_t_trust_the_government_why_trust.html
<p>If the government stops collecting our phone records, is our privacy protected?</p>
<p>That’s a common assumption in many debates about the National Security Agency. We’ve come to think of privacy as a binary question, with government as the sole threat. Now we have to think about other threats, because President Obama is proposing to outsource the NSA’s phone records program.</p>
<p>In his <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/17/remarks-president-review-signals-intelligence">speech on Friday</a> about reforming the NSA, Obama explained that the phone program is divided into two stages. The first stage is collection of the records, which show the date, time, and duration of each call from one number to another. In the second stage, the database of records is searched (“queried”) for numbers that have interacted, directly or indirectly, with numbers linked to suspected terrorists. In theory, the two stages can be <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/06/the_nsa_s_phone_call_database_a_defense_of_mass_surveillance.html">administered and regulated separately</a>.</p>
<p>In fact, the collection process begins in the private sector. What the NSA has done, Obama noted, is simply “a consolidation of phone records that the companies already retained for business purposes.” The panel of experts assigned by Obama to investigate the NSA (the <a href="http://www.dni.gov/index.php/intelligence-community/review-group">Review Group on Intelligence and Communications Technologies</a>) “turned up no indication that this database has been intentionally abused,” said Obama. Nevertheless, he acknowledged, “without proper safeguards, this type of program could be used to yield more information about our private lives.”</p>
<p>So Obama offered more safeguards. He promised to replace the program with a system capable of doing the same things, but “without the government holding this metadata itself.” The telecommunications companies, for instance, might be enlisted to retain their records, “with government accessing information as needed.” Or a “third party” might keep the records.</p>
<p>Yesterday on <em>Face the Nation</em>, Bob Schieffer <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/face-the-nation-transcripts-january-19-2014-rogers-udall-donilon-morell/">second-guessed this idea</a>. Alluding to recent <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/target_neiman_marcus_credit_card_number_hacks_were_caused_by_a_17_year_old.html">security breaches at retailers</a>, he asked Rep. Mike Rogers, the chairman of the House intelligence committee: “Do you think the private sector can do this better than the government? I mean, I look at what happened here at Target, what's happened at Neiman Marcus.”</p>
<p>Rogers agreed. Within the government, he argued, there were several layers of review over use of the phone data:</p>
<blockquote>
If you move all that to the private sector, you lose all of the review. That goes away. And you open it up to privacy concerns I don't think we talked about. Divorce lawyers are going to have a heyday. Private detectives on any civil matter anywhere in the country are going to have a heyday.
</blockquote>
<p>Schieffer then turned to Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado, an NSA critic. And here’s where the conversation took a disquieting turn. Udall dismissed Rogers’ warning as a “parade of horribles.” “The phone companies,” Udall assured viewers, created these records only because “it’s their business model to collect this data. They're not going to use that data in ways that will break faith with their customers.”</p>
<p>Wait a minute. Here’s the guy who has been brought onto the show to represent civil liberties. As long as the threat in question is the NSA, he does the job. He doesn’t accept the government’s claims of good will. He’s not impressed by the absence of known deliberate abuse. He wants clear safeguards and independent oversight.</p>
<p>But when the conversation shifts from the government to the telecom providers, Udall drops his guard. &nbsp;Suddenly the records collection is just business, and the collectors can be trusted not to “break faith with their customers.”</p>
<p>A similar thing happened on <em><a href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/54117257/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/">Meet the Press</a></em>. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the chair of the Senate intelligence committee, noted that the NSA has rules about who can access its phone records database: 22 people who, at least in theory, are vetted and supervised. If the data retention is outsourced, she asked, “How do you provide that level of supervision?” David Gregory pushed the point further, arguing that Amazon, Google, and other companies are “not only compiling data, but sharing that data, selling that data.” He asked Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian: “Is that just as much of a concern as what the government is doing?”</p>
<p>Like Udall, Ohanian was supposed to be the civil liberties advocate. And, like Udall, he deflected the question. As to expectations of privacy, he assured viewers, “That's a contract that we have with our service providers.” Promises from the government weren’t to be counted on, but apparently, promises from Internet companies were. Indeed, Ohanian blamed the NSA for the private sector’s loss of public confidence: “Countries and citizens around the world no longer want to do business with American companies, because they no longer trust that their private data is safe. I'm an entrepreneur. I'm an investor.”</p>
<p>No matter what you think of the NSA, this selective skepticism makes no sense. After all the security breaches, privacy issues, and consumer data practices that have been exposed at one company after another—<a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/20/target_neiman_marcus_credit_card_number_hacks_were_caused_by_a_17_year_old.html">Target, Neiman Marcus</a>, <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/31/3108661/10-biggest-privacy-security-breaches-rocked-2013/">Facebook, Yahoo, Adobe</a>, <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-google-nest-privacy-20140114,0,6726131,full.story">Google</a>, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/06/snapchat-lobbying_n_4549980.html">Snapchat</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/11/business/the-next-privacy-battle-may-be-waged-inside-your-car.html">Ford, and others</a>—you’d think that civil libertarians would worry about private-sector data management, not just about the government. Would delegating the retention of phone records to telecom providers or a “third party” make the risks to privacy go away? Could it create new risks? Those are good questions.</p>
<p>In the heat of political battle, it’s easy to lock in on your adversary—in this case, defenders of the NSA—and dismiss their arguments. But never forget the principles that brought you into the fight. They’re bigger than the villain of the moment.</p>Tue, 21 Jan 2014 13:54:25 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/21/nsa_phone_metadata_retention_if_you_don_t_trust_the_government_why_trust.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-21T13:54:25ZNews and PoliticsIf You Don’t Trust the NSA, Why Trust the Phone Company?244140121001surveillanceprivacynsaWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/21/nsa_phone_metadata_retention_if_you_don_t_trust_the_government_why_trust.htmlfalsefalsefalseIf you don’t trust the NSA with your records, why trust the phone company?If You Don’t Trust the NSA, Why Trust the Phone Company?Photo by Alex Wong/Getty ImagesSen. Mark Udall, D-Colorado.Utah and Gay Marriage: A Courtshiphttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/17/utah_gay_marriage_polls_are_civil_unions_the_path_to_same_sex_marriage.html
<p>Utah—probably the last state you’d expect to embrace gay marriage—is embracing gay marriage. How is this happening? What can we learn from it? What should we do about it?</p>
<p>The last big poll on this issue in Utah came out a year and a half ago, from Brigham Young University’s <a href="http://csed.byu.edu/">Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy</a>. It found that between 2004 and 2012, the percentage of Utah voters who opposed any legal recognition of same-sex relationships had <a href="http://utahdatapoints.com/2012/07/public-opinion-on-gay-marriage-in-utah/">slid from 54 percent to 29 percent</a>. But what’s more interesting is how this happened. Take a look at the partisan breakdown of the shift over time:</p>
<p>On the left, you can see Democrats accepting same-sex marriage. In the middle, among independents, the trend is less clear. But on the right, among Republicans, there’s no shift on marriage at all. And yet, over the eight-year period, the percentage of Republicans who oppose legal recognition of same-sex relationships plummeted from 72 to 42. Why? Because Republicans bought the compromise position: civil unions.</p>
<p>Many people who support the right to marry a person of the same sex despise the idea of civil unions. They say it’s a second-class status. And it is. In this poll, civil unions were framed explicitly as a rejection of gay marriage:</p>
<blockquote>
<em>Which of the following comes closest to your view?</em>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>[a] Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry.</em>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>[b] Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry.</em>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<em>[c] There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship.</em>
</blockquote>
<p>But second-class is better than nothing. And in Utah, this compromise offer was crucial to the change between 2004 and 2012. It gave Republicans a way to accept legal recognition without having to ditch their beliefs about marriage. If you read the BYU center’s <a href="http://utahdatapoints.com/2012/07/public-opinion-on-gay-marriage-in-utah/">full blog post</a> on this poll, you’ll see that the shift among Utah Republicans over time closely matched the shift among Utah Mormons. The option of civil unions allowed Mormons to reconcile same-sex relationships with LDS doctrines on marriage. And those Mormons and Republicans were crucial. Without them, legal recognition would not have become the majority position in Utah.</p>
<p>Now look at a second pair of polls. They were commissioned by David Baker, a Mormon gay activist, using <a href="http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=5l5wdpcslvqn6">Google Consumer Surveys</a>. Two weeks ago, Baker offered people in Utah <a href="http://blog.davidbbaker.com/2014/01/support-for-same-sex-marriage-in-utah-at-record-high-41/">three choices</a>: 1) “Same-sex weddings should be legal,” 2) “Civil unions for gay couples should be legal,” and 3) “No legal recog&shy;nition for gay couples.” <a href="http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=5l5wdpcslvqn6&amp;question=1&amp;dataGen=45&amp;tb=rt&amp;filter&amp;ct=bar&amp;ha=3">Result</a>: Forty-one percent picked same-sex marriage, 24 percent picked civil unions, and 31 percent picked no recognition. Then, a week ago, Baker <a href="http://blog.davidbbaker.com/2014/01/breaking-majority-of-utahns-support-gay-marriage-new-poll-confirms/">narrowed the choices to two</a>, removing the civil unions option. <a href="http://www.google.com/insights/consumersurveys/view?survey=xssrdull35rlu&amp;question=1&amp;ha=2&amp;dataGen=48">Result</a>: Fifty-one percent picked same-sex marriage, and 44 percent picked no recognition.</p>
<p>Baker said he narrowed the options because some supporters of gay marriage had complained that “by including civil unions as a choice, the [first] poll may have under-represented support for full civil marriage equality.” But you could just as easily look at it the other way. When the civil-unions option was removed, support for gay marriage increased by 10 points, but opposition to any legal recognition increased by 13 points. That’s a net loss.</p>
<p>Baker said his second poll showed, for the first time, that “<a href="http://blog.davidbbaker.com/2014/01/breaking-majority-of-utahns-support-gay-marriage-new-poll-confirms/">a majority of Utahns support marriage equality</a>.” But this was an entirely digital survey, using a small sample, with a single question framed by an activist. If you’re trying to win a political fight in Utah for gay marriage, you’d better be certain that this all-or-nothing strategy is going to get you 51 percent of the vote. Otherwise, you might push so many half-persuadable people into the no-recognition camp that you get nothing.</p>
<p>Yesterday, in fact, the <em>Salt Lake Tribune</em> released a poll indicating that <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/16/poll_utah_utah_now_split_evenly_on_whether_gay_marriage_should_be_legal.html">you might not get 51 percent</a>. In the <em><a href="http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57391605-78/marriage-sex-percent-state.html.csp">Tribune poll</a></em>, when Utahns were asked whether same-sex couples should “be allowed to get state-issued marriage licenses,” they were evenly split: 48 percent yes, 48 percent no. But civil unions won hands down. When Utahns were asked whether same-sex couples should “be allowed to form civil unions or domestic partnerships” (apparently this question, unlike the civil-unions question in the CSED poll, did not include an explicit rejection of gay marriage), 72 percent said yes. Every group that said no to same-sex marriage—Republicans, Mormons, men—said yes to civil unions.</p>
<p>If you’re an advocate of marriage rights for same-sex couples, this is a judgment call. Which poll do you trust? Which way do you frame the question? In a political fight between different ways of framing the question—which is <a href="http://www.bearingright.com/">what most political fights are</a>—which formulation do you think most voters would absorb? Every recent poll shows that by a substantial margin, Utahns support civil unions for gay couples. With that support, you could easily shatter—not just in a court ruling but at the ballot box—the state’s ban on legal recognition of same-sex relationships. Do you go that route and postpone the marriage debate until the polls have moved further? Or do you go all in on marriage?</p>
<p>This is how politics works. It’s not just about beating up the other side and rallying your friends. It’s about listening to people in the middle, understanding how their perspectives differ from yours, and working with them, as partners in conversation, toward a better world as you understand it. It requires wisdom and patience. Outrage is not enough. Condemnation, derision, and snark are useless at best. To elevate the world, we must elevate ourselves first.</p>Fri, 17 Jan 2014 15:30:53 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/17/utah_gay_marriage_polls_are_civil_unions_the_path_to_same_sex_marriage.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-17T15:30:53ZNews and PoliticsUtah and Gay Marriage: A Courtship244140117001gay marriageWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/17/utah_gay_marriage_polls_are_civil_unions_the_path_to_same_sex_marriage.htmlfalsefalsefalseIs Utah falling in love with gay marriage? A lesson in the art of political courtship.Utah and Gay Marriage: A CourtshipPhoto by Dan Kitwood/Getty ImagesA supporter of gay marriage in England, June 3, 2013.How the NSA Captured Obamahttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/16/obama_nsa_speech_how_he_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_surveillance.html
<p>How does a politician go from criticizing surveillance programs to defending them? What happened to Barack Obama?</p>
<p>Peter Baker tackles that question in today’s <em>New York Times</em>. The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/us/obamas-path-from-critic-to-defender-of-spying.html">article</a> is worth reading not just for the story it tells, but for broader lessons about how our thinking—in this case, a president’s thinking—can be reoriented (or, from a critic’s perspective warped) by unbalanced conditions and inputs. Whatever your views are on the National Security Agency—and mine have been all over the lot—try to set those aside for the moment and just notice the events and circumstances that affected Obama.</p>
<p>The first incident that shook him up, according to Baker, happened shortly after his election:</p>
<blockquote>
Mr. Obama was told before his inauguration of a supposed plot by Somali extremists to attack the ceremony, what David Axelrod, his adviser, called a “welcome-to-the-NBA moment before the first game.” Although the report proved unfounded, it reinforced to Mr. Obama the need to detect threats before they materialized. “The whole Somali threat injected their team into the realities of national security in a tangible and complicated way,” recalled Juan C. Zarate, the departing counterterrorism adviser to Mr. Bush who worked with the Obama team on the threat. So while instituting additional procedural changes, Mr. Obama undertook no major overhaul of the surveillance programs he inherited.
</blockquote>
<p>The key words in this passage are in the throwaway clause: The report <em>proved unfounded</em>. The intel people weren’t telling Obama about something that was going to happen. They weren’t even telling him about something that could have happened. They were telling him about something that, as it turned out, never would have happened. It wasn’t a threat. It was an <em>unfounded report</em> of a threat.</p>
<p>That’s the power of the intel briefing, as an instrument of bias. The briefers don’t just tell you about the actual threats. They tell you about the plausible or even possible threats. You get the largest possible picture of the terrible things that could happen if our agencies aren’t able to monitor communications.</p>
<p>A former Obama aide tells Baker that as president, Obama “has more information than he did” as a senator. But what, exactly, is information? Obama doesn’t just get information about reality. He gets information about possibilities. Is that information? Or is it speculation?</p>
<p>Compare this information overload about security threats with what happens on the other side: an information deficit about surveillance practices. After Obama was elected, Baker reports, “surveillance issues were off his agenda.” A former intel official tells Baker: “There wasn’t really any serious discussion of what NSA was up to.” When the first leaks about NSA programs surfaced last year, Obama was unmoved. But Baker reports: “As more secrets spilled out, though, aides said even Mr. Obama was chagrined. They said he was exercised to learn that the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany was being tapped.”</p>
<p>This is the other side of the coin. The intel people tell the president everything about what terrorists might be doing. But they don’t tell him everything about what the intel people are doing. They choose—and slant—the balance of information. That doesn’t mean they’re dishonest or sinister. My impression is that they’re quite conscientious. But in some ways, that makes the slant more worrisome. It’s systematic.</p>
<p>On top of the information bias, there’s the bias of Obama’s job description. Baker reports:</p>
<blockquote>
Just weeks after the inauguration, Judge Reggie B. Walton issued a secret ruling reprimanding the NSA for violating its own procedures. But when Mr. Obama was briefed, the case did not stir consternation. The president’s team instructed the Justice Department to fix the problem, but “this was not a central concern and he was very quick in knowing how to deal with it,” said a former administration official. … When civil liberties advocates visited to press him to do more to reverse Mr. Bush’s policies, Mr. Obama pushed back. “He reminded me that he had a different role to play, that he was commander in chief and that he needed to protect the American people,” recalled Mr. Romero of the ACLU.
</blockquote>
<p>Compare those two episodes. Obama gets a warning of NSA violations. No problem: The Justice Department will take care of it. But the Justice Department can’t take care of security threats. Those fall to the commander in chief. Obama isn’t a neutral player in these tradeoffs. His job description makes him feel directly responsible for security, not for privacy.</p>
<p>Then there’s the bias of self-trust. A former aide tells Baker that Obama “trusts himself to use these powers more than he did the Bush administration.” After the NSA leaks, Obama</p>
<blockquote>
was surprised at the uproar that ensued, advisers said, particularly that so many Americans did not trust him, much less trust the oversight provided by the intelligence court and Congress.&nbsp;… Mr. Obama appointed a panel to review the programs. “The point we made to him was, ‘We’re not really concerned about you, Barack, but God forbid some other guy’s in the office five years from now and there’s another 9/11,’&nbsp;” said Richard A. Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism adviser who served on the panel. He had to “lay down some roadblocks in addition to what we have now so that once you’re gone it’ll be harder” to abuse spying abilities.
</blockquote>
<p>This compounds the bias of the president’s job description. The president also has a personal bias, because he’s the guy in the job. In terms of objectivity, this makes him the worst person to evaluate the risks of presidential power. He wouldn’t have run for the job, or won it, if he didn’t have unnaturally high confidence in himself. And that self-confidence colors his willingness to empower the executive, no matter how hard he tries to filter it out.</p>
<p>These biases don’t invalidate Obama’s decisions about privacy and surveillance. I have a lot of faith in the guy. To be honest, my level of trust in him is, for a journalist, almost embarrassing. But I’m not asking you to share that trust or to reach a particular conclusion about the NSA and its oversight. I just want to show you, through Baker’s article, how, even with the best of intentions, any of us—including the president—can be skewed by position and circumstances.</p>Thu, 16 Jan 2014 18:13:09 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/16/obama_nsa_speech_how_he_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_surveillance.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-16T18:13:09ZNews and PoliticsHow Obama Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the NSA244140116001surveillanceterrorismprivacyWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/16/obama_nsa_speech_how_he_learned_to_stop_worrying_and_love_surveillance.htmlfalsefalsefalseHow Obama learned to stop worrying and love the NSA.How Obama Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the NSAPhoto by SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty ImagesPresident Obama with James Clapper, his then-nominee for director of national intelligence, June 5, 2010.Do Pro-Lifers Oppose Birth Control?http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/15/do_pro_lifers_oppose_birth_control_polls_say_no.html
<p>Are pro-lifers—people who claim to oppose abortion on the grounds that it’s the taking of a human life—against birth control?</p>
<p>Many of you seem to think they are. Here are excerpts from the comments on <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/naral_s_new_report_shows_pro_choicers_should_focus_on_birth_control_not.html">yesterday’s post</a> about reducing the abortion rate through birth control:</p>
<blockquote>
<strong><a href="http://id.slate.com/identity/siteRegistration/editProfile">MrsLiv</a>:</strong> I think you're missing the whole point of the pro-life, pro-choice fight. Pro-choice isn't about abortion, any more than pro-life is about babies. One side thinks that humans should have freedom to control their reproductive lives, and the other side thinks if a woman chooses to have sex, she should face the &quot;consequence&quot; of raising a child. … [Conservatives] don't actually care about all the abortions, or they would support the policies we know lower the abortion rate. They care about doing their best to control other people and punish those who don't follow the rules they want them to follow.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong><a href="http://id.slate.com/identity/siteRegistration/editProfile">Ominous_silence</a>:</strong> Whatever their motives, it's hard not to conclude that the anti-abortion side objects to a women's right to make medical decisions in private.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong><a href="http://id.slate.com/identity/siteRegistration/editProfile">Dannni</a>:</strong> Pro-life supports nothing but fetal life, generally screaming about fetal murder without supporting birth control access, sex ed, or social programs.&nbsp;
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong><a href="http://id.slate.com/identity/siteRegistration/editProfile">felagund</a>:</strong> We don't have to satisfy &quot;pro-life&quot; objectives at all. And one objective we won't satisfy is to pretend that &quot;pro-life&quot; people are actually pro-life. Lord Saletan and his ilk are misogynists who want to see women suffer.
</blockquote>
<p>The assertion that pro-lifers don’t really care about abortion—that what really motivates them is misogyny, controlling other people’s bodies, and forcing anyone who has sex to have a baby—is morally comforting to a lot of pro-choice people. It reassures us that we’re on the side of compassion, justice, and progress, and that there’s no reason to feel ambivalent about this issue. We have nothing to heed or learn from our enemies. Our only challenge is to defeat them.</p>
<p>This is one of those echo-chamber beliefs that won’t survive a reality test. Here are some results from a <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/154799/americans-including-catholics-say-birth-control-morally.aspx">Gallup poll of U.S. adults</a>, taken in May 2012:</p>
<p>Let’s assume, to be as generous as possible, that every person who said any of these things was morally wrong also said that abortion was wrong. Then let’s subtract the percentage who said the other things were wrong from the percentage who said abortion was wrong. In that case, here’s the math: Forty-two percent of the sample said that abortion and having a baby outside marriage were wrong; 9 percent said that abortion was wrong but did not say that having a baby outside marriage was wrong. Ditto for abortion versus “gay and lesbian relations.” Thirty-eight percent of the sample said that abortion and sex between unmarried people were wrong; 13 percent said that abortion was wrong but did not say that sex between unmarried people was wrong. Twenty-five percent of the sample said that abortion and divorce were wrong; 26 percent said that abortion was wrong but did not say that divorce was wrong. Eight percent of the sample said that abortion and birth control were wrong; 43 percent said that abortion was wrong but did not say that birth control was wrong.</p>
<p>Now let’s take these remainders—9, 13, 26, 43—and express them as percentages of the 51 percent who said abortion was wrong. Here’s what we get. Among people who said abortion was wrong, 18 percent did not say that having a baby outside of marriage was wrong. Similarly, 18 percent did not say that gay and lesbian relations were wrong. Twenty-five percent did not say that sex between unmarried people was wrong. Fifty-one percent did not say that divorce was wrong. Eighty-four percent did not say that birth control was wrong.</p>
<p>In fact, let’s assume, to be generous again, that every person who did not explicitly say that birth control was morally acceptable was a person who said abortion was wrong. After subtracting that 11 percent, we find that 40 percent of the entire sample said that abortion was wrong but that birth control was acceptable.&nbsp; Divide 40 by 51, and here’s what you get: At a minimum, 78 percent of all respondents who said abortion was morally wrong also said that birth control was morally acceptable.</p>
<p>What was that again about pro-lifers doing their best to control other people? About making women face the consequences of sex? About objecting to a woman’s right to make medical decisions in private? About wanting to see women suffer?</p>
<p>If you’re determined to insist that pro-lifers really oppose birth control, these numbers won’t sway you. You can always argue that they’re against “access” to birth control. It’s true that the absolutism of pro-life political leaders has driven them to attack all public funding of family-planning organizations that perform, or even counsel women about, abortions. If you think they’re <a href="https://twitter.com/ilyseh/status/423435262937419777">foolish and wrong</a> to do so, I agree with you. But that’s an argument about policy and consequences. It’s not about motives. And the further the pro-life movement ventures in this direction, the further it strays from the pro-life public.<br /> </p>
<p>Pro-lifers don’t oppose birth control. They support it overwhelmingly. Three of every four people who regard abortion as morally wrong believe not just that you have a right to use contraception, but that using it is morally acceptable. That’s not my opinion. It’s a fact.</p>Wed, 15 Jan 2014 15:07:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/15/do_pro_lifers_oppose_birth_control_polls_say_no.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-15T15:07:00ZNews and PoliticsDo Pro-Lifers Oppose Birth Control? Polls Say No.244140115001birth controlcontraceptionabortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/15/do_pro_lifers_oppose_birth_control_polls_say_no.htmlfalsefalsefalseDo pro-lifers oppose birth control? Poll results say no.Do Pro-Lifers Oppose Birth Control? Polls Say No.Photo by Mario Tama/Getty ImagesThese Lifestyles fit right in with the lifestyles of most pro-lifers.Abortion: The Way Outhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/naral_s_new_report_shows_pro_choicers_should_focus_on_birth_control_not.html
<p>Every year, near the anniversary of <em>Roe v. Wade</em>, NARAL Pro-Choice America publishes a report on abortion-related legislation around the country. This year’s report, <a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/who-decides/">released today</a>, shows how the landscape has changed. The most forward-looking legislation isn’t about abortion. It’s about birth control.&nbsp;</p>
<p>NARAL was founded when abortion was illegal. Back then, it was the <a href="http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/404253/NARAL-Pro-Choice-America">National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws</a>. After abortion became legal nationwide, the organization kept its acronym but changed its name to reflect the new political situation. It became the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NARAL_Pro-Choice_America">National Abortion Rights Action League</a>. Later, to broaden its agenda and message, it became <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/05/us/abortion-rights-group-plans-a-new-focus-and-a-new-name.html">NARAL Pro-Choice America</a>. Its mission statement, <a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/about-us/mission-statements.html">reaffirmed in today’s report</a>, is “to guarantee every woman the right to make personal decisions regarding the full range of reproductive choices, including preventing unintended pregnancy, bearing healthy children, and choosing legal abortion.”</p>
<p>There’s a lot of talk in the report about seizing the initiative. Pro-choicers are tired of spending all their time and money fighting off anti-abortion legislation, clinic harassment, and crisis pregnancy centers masquerading as neutral abortion counselors. “In an environment of constant attacks on reproductive freedom, we play a lot of defense,” NARAL President Ilyse Hogue warns in a <a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/who-decides/from-the-president.html">letter introducing the report</a>. “A permanent defensive posture is a losing strategy. You win some battles, you lose others, but you're only ever ceding ground.”</p>
<p>Hogue’s idea of offense, according to her letter, is a new law in California. She explains that it would</p>
<blockquote>
expand abortion access by letting qualified medical professionals like midwives and nurse practitioners provide early abortion care. California's new measure should be a model for the rest of the country; making abortion more accessible means making it safer. More important, it should be a model for the entire pro-choice movement. We should be working every day to make it easier and safer for women to obtain abortion care.
</blockquote>
<p>NARAL is right about this measure and about the broader principle: Abortion is safer for women when our laws make it easier, not harder, for well-trained and well-intentioned medical people to offer the procedure. But making abortion safer for women won’t diminish the onslaught of anti-abortion legislation. What will diminish that onslaught, in the long run, is an alternative agenda that addresses what gives the pro-life movement its political power: abortion itself. The pro-choice movement has to offer and pursue pro-choice ways of satisfying pro-life objectives.</p>
<p>That’s what makes the details of the new report so interesting. On the organization’s list of six “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/government-and-you/state-governments/key-findings-pro-choice.html">Key Pro-Choice Victories in 2013</a>,” only two pertain to protecting the right to abortion. Three are about sex education and birth control. Above this list, the only accomplishment NARAL touts as an example of “Pro-Choice State Measures Enacted in 2013” is a Hawaii law “to guarantee emergency contraception in the emergency room for sexual-assault survivors.”</p>
<p>The pattern continues as you scroll down to NARAL’s list of “Pro-Choice Laws” enacted in the states. Most categories on the list don’t pertain to abortion. Four of the seven categories are “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/insurance_contraception.html">Contraceptive Equity</a>,” “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/emergency_contraception.html">Emergency Contraception</a>,” “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/guaranteed-access-to-prescriptions.html">Guaranteed Access to Prescriptions</a>,” and “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/low-income-fp-access.html">Low-income Women’s Access to Family Planning</a>.” When you click through to see how many states have enacted pro-choice laws on these subjects, birth control beats abortion hands down. Pro-choice policies on the three abortion topics—“<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/foca.html">Freedom of Choice Acts</a>,” “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/clinic-violence.html">Protection Against Clinic Violence</a>,” and “<a href="http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/what-is-choice/fast-facts/issues-constitutional-protection.html">State Constitutional Protection</a>” for abortion rights—have been adopted in seven, 16, and 16 states, respectively—an average of 13. Pro-choice policies on the four birth-control topics have been adopted in 28, 22, seven, and 32 states, respectively—an average of 22.</p>
<p>NARAL isn’t going to drop the fight for abortion rights anytime soon. That fight is in its DNA, and somebody has to make sure that when all else fails, a woman can find someone better than Kermit Gosnell to help her. But the fight to protect abortion rights will always be ugly and unsatisfying. The most plausible way out of this perpetual war is to convince the public, not just through words but through policies and results, that the best way to prevent abortions is to help women avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place.</p>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:03:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/naral_s_new_report_shows_pro_choicers_should_focus_on_birth_control_not.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-14T23:03:00ZNews and PoliticsSick of the Abortion Debate? NARAL's New Report Shows Birth Control Is the Way Out.244140114002birth controlcontraceptionabortionWilliam SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/naral_s_new_report_shows_pro_choicers_should_focus_on_birth_control_not.htmlfalsefalsefalseThe inadvertent message of NARAL's new report: Birth control, not abortion, is the way forward.Sick of the Abortion Debate? NARAL's New Report Shows Birth Control Is the Way Out.Photo by Allison Shelley/Getty ImagesA pro-choice vigil at the U.S. Supreme Court, Jan. 22, 2013Welcomehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/the_saletan_blog_a_place_to_learn_and_rethink_the_world.html
<p>I’ve started this blog because I’m worried about what has happened to the way we talk on the Internet. Too often, we look for writers, publications, and news sources that confirm our biases. We avoid information that troubles our assumptions. We engage our critics with a resolve to refute or mock them, not to learn.</p>
<p>This blog will encourage you to reconsider what you believe. It will seek out information that challenges you and me to refine our thinking. It will expose how public actors of all kinds—politicians, celebrities, activists, writers—frame issues to shape our views. It will disrupt echo chambers. Some of the topics here will be political. Some will be cultural. Some will involve changes in technology or medicine that complicate our prior understandings of the world.</p>
<p>If you’re looking for a writer you can count on every day to say something congenial, I’m sorry. I’m not your guy. But if you’re tired of that game—if you’re inquisitive, open-minded, and willing to tolerate my stumbles along the way—I’ll do my best to earn your trust and your time. Welcome.</p>Tue, 14 Jan 2014 23:01:00 GMThttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/the_saletan_blog_a_place_to_learn_and_rethink_the_world.htmlWilliam Saletan2014-01-14T23:01:00ZNews and PoliticsA New Blog About Rethinking the World244140114001William SaletanSaletanSaletanhttp://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/01/14/the_saletan_blog_a_place_to_learn_and_rethink_the_world.htmlfalsefalsefalseA New Blog About Rethinking the WorldA New Blog About Rethinking the World